Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Post Office Bill

Mr. Molloy: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 10,000 members of the Post Office Engineering Union, wherein they express their concern that the rôle of postal and telecommunications workers in the new Corporation which is envisaged in the Post Office Bill now before Parliament should be fully and sufficiently integrated within the Corporation. They further ask that no restriction on manufacture should be placed on the new Corporation, otherwise development will be impeded and the nation's interests will suffer.
They also express their grave apprehension, as prospective employees of the new Corporation, that, whilst some members Of the staff will be able to retire at 60, others will not be able to retire until the age of 65. This, they claim, is causing grave concern, and the Post Office Engineering Union considers that such conditions would be inimical to good staff relations which are essential

to the trades union in launching this new endeavour on the road to success.
The Petition states:
We therefore pray you, our Parliamentary representatives, that the Post Office Bill now before the House be modified to allow that our present age of retirement should be maintained in the future Post Office Corporation so that all employees may enjoy the same enhanced benefits of the superannuation scheme.
The Petition concludes:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Miss V. Blanchard (Member's Letter)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to give a full reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Croydon, South regarding the case of his constituent, Miss V. Blanchard.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): I sent my hon. Friend a full reply on 14th April.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that two young people who wish to marry are being kept apart because the man involved is being held by the


Greek dictatorship without being brought to trial? Is he also aware that last week when I tried to see the person who is being held in prison in Greece the Greek authorities refused permission for me to do so?

Mr. Whitlock: Mr. Fragoulakis is not a British subject. If we made representation to the Greek Government on his behalf they would consider it an interference in their internal affairs, and the result would be more likely to prejudice his prospects of release than to improve them.

Nevis and St. Kitts

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking, in discharge of our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs, to keep himself informed of the internal affairs in the islands of Nevis and St. Kitts.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I am kept informed of the situation in the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla by the British Government Representative in the Associated States.

Mr. Marten: As the real issue, as the Foreign Secretary told us in the debate on Anguilla, is that Anguilla was faced with corrupt tendencies in its administration, backed up by intimidation, is the Foreign Secretary not aware that the same may be said of St. Kitts? Why, therefore, do we have one policy towards Anguilla and another policy towards St. Kitts?

Mr. Stewart: It is not Her Majesty's Government's view that the condition in the two islands is the same.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of St. Kitts have now agreed to revise the Associated State Agreement in order to permit the secession of Anguilla from the State.

Mr. M. Stewart: I take it that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla Agreement, 1967. Nothing has been agreed between

Her Majesty's Government and the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla about the revision of the Agreement.

Mr. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now unlikely that Anguilla will ever return voluntarily to association with St. Kitts, and that it would be unwise for either the British or the St. Kitts' Government to force the Anguillans to do so? If he agrees on that, will he seek an appropriate time to negotiate with Mr. Bradshaw the judicial secession of Anguilla from the Associated State?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I should move from the position that I have previously expressed, that it is not our purpose to force upon the Anguillans any régime that they do not want. Beyond that, at this stage we must not try to pronounce what the settlement will be. A good deal of time and thought will be needed before we can be precise about that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. Before we leave the Anguillan question—[Interruption.] Am I to understand that I should raise my point of order at the end of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. That would be better.

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

Mr. M. Stewart: The situation in Anguilla has, I am glad to say, taken a turn for the better. Mr. Cumber has had a number of meetings with


Anguillan leaders of opinion and members of the public; at these a cordial atmosphere has prevailed. There have been some other indications of a reduction in tension and increased willingness to co-operate with Her Majesty's Commissioner.
I have invited the Premier of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla to visit London on 7th and 8th May, and I am glad that Mr. Bradshaw has accepted. I look forward to continuing the talks I had with him in Washington.

Mr. Marten: As the only offensive weapons which have come to light in seven weeks' occupation by British troops of Anguilla are ten rifles, four pistols, two carbines and one anti-tank rifle, does not this make a laughing stock of the whole operation? Will the Foreign Secretary say how many rounds of ammunition have been found which fire out of the anti-talk rifle, and will he place the information in the Library?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that it can be regarded as a laughing stock. It was beyond doubt that there was a lawless and dangerous condition in Anguilla, and that is the opinion of any informed person.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend clear up the position, over which there is still some mystery, of Mr. Tony Lee? Secondly, will he take great care that his forthcoming talks with Mr. Bradshaw are not misinterpreted on Anguilla to mean that we are betraying the interests of the Anguillans?

Mr. Stewart: In reply to the last part of the question, we will take care to that effect. As for the first part of the question, I have now seen Mr. Lee. After his leave he will be employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and will not be returning to Anguilla. Mr. Cumber's name has been submitted to the Queen for appointment as Her Majesty's Commissioner.

Mr. Wall: In his discussions with Mr. Bradshaw, will the Foreign Secretary be discussing the whole problem in the context of wider association in the West Indies?

Mr. Stewart: I do not want to prejudice the substance of the conversations, but they may range quite widely.

Mr. Fisher: To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman trying to associate the independent countries of the Commonwealth with the long-term solution of this problem in association with us, and how far has he reached in that exercise? What form does he envisage that association might take?

Mr. Stewart: I have had some discussions with representatives of independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, but I thought that before going any further it was right to consult with Mr. Bradshaw.

Mr. John Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider carefully the possible appointment of a West Indian representative on the staff of the Commissioner in Anguilla?

Mr. Stewart: I will consider that, yes.

Mr. Braine: While we are all very pleased that the situation in Anguilla has improved, has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided to issue a White Paper setting out all the details of and the justification for the intervention?

Mr. Stewart: This has already been discussed fully in the House. I undertook to consider whether this was necessary, but I doubt whether it is necessary in view of information which has already been given to the House.

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority armed Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on 14th February, 1967.

Mr. Whitlock: No Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on that date.

Viscount Lambton: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "Navy personnel" when he said that navy personnel had landed? This confirms the statement:
H.M.S."Salisbury" landed territorial police in Anguilla on 15th February, 1967, supported by Royal Navy personnel …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 544.]
Would he say what was meant by it? Would he not agree that his belated admission that there was a landing at this stage in Anguilla contradicts the Government's earlier statements that they had no idea of the antipathies to the


Federation? Would he also comment on the earlier statement by Lord Beswick in the House of Lords?

The Speaker: Order. Firstly, we cannot have quotations in Questions, and, secondly, questions should be reasonably brief.

Viscount Lambton: Will the hon. Gentleman say why it was denied previously in the House of Lords?

Mr. Whitlock: The ship's platoon of 40 sailors was landed on that occasion in support of some 30 to 40 policemen. They were there to support the police when the latter were carrying out a search for weapons and were making some arrests in connection with the disturbances on the island on 4th February, 1967, when stones were thrown and a police officer was injured. The events now mentioned occurred only a few days before Statehood on 27th February, 1967, and they were obviously in no way an indication of mass opposition to Statehood.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a supplementary question, completely to anticipate Question No. 32?

Mr. Speaker: It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to anticipate questions. It may be inevitable for a Minister, but it is unusual.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a further point of order. Would it not have been in order for the Minister to have taken that Question with the other Question?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for that. The Question will be asked when it is reached.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give full particulars of the Royal Naval and other armed personnel landed on Anguilla on the 14th Febraury, 1967; and at whose request, and on whose authority, they were landed.

Mr. Whitlock: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the account I gave of this matter on 23rd April. The operation was carried out at the request of the Government of the then colonial territory

of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla under the general authority of the Senior Naval Officer West Indies to act in aid of the civil power in colonial territories.—[Vol. 782, c. 544.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We have had so many confused and contradictory statements. Is it not absolutely clear now that opposition to Mr. Byron's installation in 1967 was apprehended? Why did Lord Beswick say, in another place, that the presence of these forces was not required?

Mr. Whitlock: There is confusion in the hon. Member's mind. My noble Friend in another place was probably dealing with the allegation that marines had landed on the island.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been submitted to Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla of murders committed in the territory in the years 1967, 1968 and to date in 1969; how many of these murders are unsolved; how many prisoners are awaiting trial for murder; how many convicted murderers are in prison for murders committed since 1967; and where these prisoners are detained.

Mr. Whitlock: As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st May, a suspected case of murder on 2nd January, 1968, was reported. A person who is now on bail has been committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter in respect of this case. No other cases have been reported and the other parts of the Question do not therefore arise.—[Vol. 782, c. 270.]

Mr. Braine: Is not it within the recollection of the House that on 23rd April the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told us, in the context of the justification for military intervention in Anguilla, that there were undoubted cases of arson and murder? Are we now to understand that there were no proven cases of arson and no cases of murder? Does not this strengthen the demand from hon. Members on this side of the House for a full statement in a White Paper at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Whitlock: There appears to have been some misunderstanding—I hope that it was not deliberate—about my right


hon. Friend's meaning, which was that there had been only one case of murder, whereas there had been more than one case of arson. My right hon. Friend referred to it as an undoubted case at the time when it occurred, and until very recently, in the absence of any proper judicial arrangements on the island, it was generally considered to be a case of murder.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot comment further on a case which is apparently sub judice.

Middle East Arms Supplies

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the Security Council that arms supplies should be withheld from any Middle Eastern State obstructing a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the lines of the unanimous Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I do not consider that a separate initiative of the sort proposed would help the efforts of the four Powers who are now discussing the Middle East situation in New York; though, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply to the right hon. Member for Devon. North (Mr. Thorpe) on 17th February, the subject may be raised during the talks.—[Vol. 778, c. 8–9.]

Mr. Mayhew: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if the permanent members reach agreement on proposals for a settlement and they are endorsed by the Security Council, if then one of the countries of the Middle East refuses to accept the proposals, is it not quite unacceptable that it should go on being armed by one of the permanent members?

Mr. Roberts: We should await the outcome of the four-Power talks which are making quite good progress and not anticipate difficulties of this sort, especially anticipatory intentions which might put difficulty in the way of the four-Power talks. I have said that it is possible, indeed quite likely, that the four Powers may consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Arab-Israeli Conflict (Four-Power Talks)

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the four-Power discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 28th April to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).—[Vol. 782, c. 928.]

Mr. Mayhew: While welcoming the previous reply, which indicated that good progress has been made by the four-Power talks, could we be assured that they are taking place within the scope of the November, 1967, Resolution?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, indeed. The talks are directed to a very careful examination of all the subjects contained in the November, 1967, Resolution.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend consider this as a very urgent matter since every day the present fighting continues it means that the Charter of the United Nations is more and more becoming regarded as a scrap of paper?

Mr. Roberts: We are fully seized of the urgency of the situation for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend.

Sir C. Osborne: Since the Soviet Union now seem to have the greatest power in the Middle East, are Her Majesty's Government keeping in close touch with Moscow on this vital issue and are they getting all the co-operation which they desire?

Mr. Roberts: Apart from the four-Power talks, there are bilateral talks going on. We welcome this as we welcome the Soviet initiative of 2nd January.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that if the Arab countries were prepared to accept and recognise the existence of Israel real progress could be made in relation to a peace settlement?

Mr. Roberts: This is a fundamental part of the overall settlement for which we are working.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest representations made by Argentina in the talks which are taking place on the future of the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 24th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1030–1.]

Mr. Smith: Is it not time that these talks were drawn to a close? As there is still a strong suspicion that the Government might surrender sovereignty for these islands, would not the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny absolutely that this is the intention?

Mr. Roberts: In reply to the hon. Member when he last raised this matter, I was specific that there had been absolutely no change in the quite firm position made so clear by my right hon. Friend on numerous occasions in the House. I gladly restate that position today.

Mr. Luard: Since Her Majesty's Government have made clear many times that there is no question of the transfer of sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, is it not in the interests of the inhabitants of those islands that this country should establish the closest possible co-operation with the Argentine Government about the future of the islands?

Mr. Roberts: I agree. My hon. Friend states the two parts of our policy fairly and fully. It is necessary to discuss; it is necessary to get the best possible relations with the Argentine. At the same time, we have made absolutely clear where we stand about the future of the Falklands.

Mr. Braine: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what there is to discuss with the Argentine over this matter? What are the arrangements which would be of such advantage to the Falkland Islanders that these discussions must go on, creating the impression that at the end of the day the question of sovereignty is to be discussed?

Mr. Roberts: Clearly it is necessary to talk about the improvement of communications, which at the moment the

hon. Gentleman knows are not at all good. There are other aspects of the relationship of these islands and the country nearest to them on the mainland which ought to be discussed. Discussing these matters does not for a moment mean that the position of the future sovereignty of the islands is in any way prejudiced.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any response whatever from the Argentine Government?

Mr. Roberts: I can say that the discussions which have proceeded in the last few weeks have been amicable and reasonable and in no way have prejudiced the position which I have stated.

French Foreign Minister (Discussions)

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official conversations with M. Debré.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he had about the future of Western European Union at his recent meeting with the French Foreign Minister.

Mr. M. Stewart: I met Monsieur Debré on 11th April in Washington. The content of our conversation was confidential, but I took the opportunity to remind Monsieur Debré that, as we had already informed the French Government on 12th and 24th February, we are very willing to have talks with them provided that our partners are kept fully in the picture.

Mr. Henig: As soon as the new constellation of political forces emerges in France, will my right hon. Friend make it a top item on his agenda to have conversations with the new French Government with an absolutely clean slate? Secondly, does he think that this is a good moment to reaffirm that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to join the European Economic Community as soon as possible?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, Yes, Sir. As to the first part, I have made


it clear already both in these conversations with M. Debré and elsewhere that we are desirous of talks with the French Government.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: While recognising that these conversations are probably out of date already, would the right hon. Gentleman make a real attempt with the new Foreign Minister of France, when he is appointed, to come to an agreement about the future of W.E.U?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. We are anxious to have French co-operation in Western European Union, whoever the French Government may be. We have made this clear repeatedly and shall go on doing so.

Mr. Marten: Will the Government do something that they have never done before and proceed on this matter with a certain amount of caution?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman is always a particularly good adviser on caution. We shall proceed in the interests of this country and constantly in touch with our partners in Western European Union.

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1152.]

Mr. Wall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any reply has been sent to the recent proposals from Salisbury and whether Her Majesty's Government propose any new initiatives before the Rhodesian referendum, after which it will be too late?

Mr. Stewart: We have not had anything from Salisbury which could be de scribed as a proposal or plan.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he could give us an adequate picture of the arrangements to be made for consulting the African people of Rhodesia about any settlement that is reached in order

to avoid the disasters which followed the inadequate consultation in respect of the so-called Central African Federation?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend will remember that one of the six principles and one of the terms of the "Fearless" proposals was that they should be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I hope that it may be possible in due course to make a much fuller statement both on this point and on others.

U.S.S.R. and China (Detained British Subjects)

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is now taking in order to alleviate the discriminatory treatment meted out to British nationals in the hands of the Russian and Chinese Governments.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have no reason to complain of discrimination in the cases of Mr. Parsons and Mr. Lorraine, who are detained in the Soviet Union. There is a later Question about Mr. Brooke. As regards British subjects detained in China, we have made repeated representations here and in Peking for consular access and details of the charges against them without success. We shall continue to press the Chinese. The Governments of other nationals detained in China have also been unsuccessful in their approaches to the Chinese authorities.

Captain Elliot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all know the reasons why our countrymen are being held? In the circumstances, would he not agree that soft diplomatic words are not always enough? Would he convene a conference with our friends and allies and work out what concerted action is necessary to convince Russia and China that the cruel and barbarous treatment of our nationals in their hands does not pay?

Mr. Stewart: We have had consultations with the other Governments concerned. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question spoke of discriminatory treatment. We must notice that the treatment which our nationals have received has been matched by that applied to the nationals of other countries.

Mr. Onslow: That is no comfort.

Mr. Wood: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State, during the passage of the Consular Relations Bill, giving a specific undertaking about the regularity of consular access which would be available in these cases? Is it right that such an undertaking should have been given if it could not be honoured?

Mr. Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Consular Agreement with Russia, that refers to "periodic" access, but it does not state the periods.

Burma Embassy Staff (Travel Restrictions)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions the Burma Government have placed on the movements of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy in Rangoon, and British consular officers in Burma; and what similar restrictions are applied to members of the Burmese Embassy in London.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past year members of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy, Rangoon, have been able to make visits to other parts of Burma.

Mr. Whitlock: Her Majesty's Embassy and other foreign missions in Burma, are asked to give prior notice in writing of proposed journeys to points outside the Rangoon area. During the past year 35 such journeys have been made by members of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy, Rangoon. No restrictions are placed on journeys by members of the Burmese Embassy in London.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the permits freely given, and why is it that no British journalist can obtain admission to Burma, which is an important country with which we have historical links?

Mr. Whitlock: There were no occasions in 1968 or 1969 when permission was refused for intended journeys notified by Her Majesty's Embassy in Rangoon. The general procedure for notifying journeys in advance of dates goes

back to the time of the civil war, and the present procedure dates from 1959.

Mr. Onslow: How many of these visits were to the Shan State and the Kachin State, and how does that compare with the position ten years ago?

Mr. Whitlock: I am afraid that I should need notice of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

South Africa

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's latest representations to the Government of South Africa arising from their study of the administration of Namibia and the implications of the South-West African Affairs Bill.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We have made no representations to the Government of South Africa on this question since the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 14th February.—[Vol. 777, c. 408–9.]

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the South African Government have no right to introduce this Bill, and would he explain why, along with France, we abstained on the U.N. resolution last March?

Mr. Roberts: We have made clear to the South African Government our views on this and previous legislation, which had something like the same effect on this territory as this Bill. Our reason for abstaining had nothing to do with the Bill as such but with procedure. I would also remind my hon. Friend that on 20th March my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon made a full statement setting out our reasons for opposing the legislation and, indeed, for our action in the U.N.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which will come first—the removal of the South Africans from South-West Africa or of the Russians from the Baltic States?

United Nations (British Dependencies)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the


United Nations Committee of 24 has requested permission to visit British dependencies; on how many occasions such requests have been granted; and on how many occasions they have been refused.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: There have, over the years, been numerous such requests. The only one we felt able to grant was for a special United Nations visiting mission to Aden in April, 1967.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this reluctance has an unfortunate effect on world opinion and that, if we are as satisfied as we have the right to be in the administration of our dependencies, we might do well to invite the U.N. to visit our remaining dependencies ahead of requests of this kind?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot agree. From experience, the unfortunate effects are probably in the territories themselves. We have a record second to none in decolonisation. We make full and regular reports under Article 73(e) to the U.N., and we voluntarily inform the U.N. about the progress to stable self-rule in each territory. I see no reason automatically to accept visits of this sort.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at least in Aden, the activities of the United Nations Mission were little short of a farce?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly they did not help in that situation.

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider receiving a United Nations visiting mission in the next British territory to receive independence before independence is granted.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My right hon. Friend is always aready to consider proposals put to him, but it would be a matter for very careful judgment by us whether any such visit would prove helpful in a particular case.

Mr. Luard: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the general attitude of this Committee has changed considerably over the past year and that the Governments of New Zealand and Spain have won considerable good will, not only in the Committee but in the United Nations, by inviting missions of this kind to

territories before they reached independence? Will my right hon. Friend consider, in particular, the possibility of inviting a mission of this kind to St. Vincent before associated statehood is granted?

Mr. Roberts: I have stated our general attitude. We review our attitude regularly to the Committee of 24. We have maintained our membership and we co-operate to the utmost with it. I have indicated in a previous Answer how fully we provide information about what we do in these dependencies. To compare our position with that of countries which have only one, or perhaps two, dependencies when we have 20 is, I think, a bit misplaced.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the Minister resist any temptation to invite the Committee of 24 to Gibraltar, if only in the interests of its own security.

Mr. Roberts: I have said that my right hon. Friend will consider any request and decide what is best in any particular case.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is great advantage in securing the good will of the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) said in his Question? Will he also agree that, if the U.N. mission to Aden had been treated properly, a great deal of the bloodshed and other disasters might have been avoided?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot but disagree with the second part of my right hon. Friend's Question. On the first part, we shall certainly look at every application with a view to deciding whether it is necessary, useful and helpful.

Germany (War Criminals)

Mr. Norwood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the appropriate steps to ensure that all war criminals in Berlin are prosecuted, regardless of the time at which the crimes occurred; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The German authorities in Berlin have been taking appropriate steps to ensure that war criminals in Berlin are prosecuted, and


we are confident that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Norwood: May I interpret that remark as being a guarantee that no matter how far ahead it may be, in view of the nature of some of these crimes, the persons concerned will be sought out and, when found, prosecuted?

Mr. Roberts: I am glad to say that the Federal Government and the Berlin Senate are taking steps which I hope will be effective to extend the Statute of Limitations in this regard. The extradition of a criminal of this kind depends upon the result of an application from the country concerned to the country in which the criminal is resident.

Mr. Gerald Brooke

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his inquiries into the condition of Mr. Gerald Brooke, and his prospects for release.

Mr. M. Stewart: A visit to Mr. Brooke by Her Majesty's Consul in Moscow is taking place today.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the whole House will be relieved to hear that the Consul is being granted access. Since the the Anglo-Soviet Convention requires, under Article 36, that there should be this access, and protocol is that it should be on a recurrent basis, will my hon. Friend say whether he regards this visit as the first of many on a recurrent basis which Mr. Brooke will have by right, as otherwise the Soviet Union will be in breach of the spirit if not of the letter of the Convention?

Mr. Stewart: That is our view. The Convention provides for access on a recurrent basis. We have not been able to agree with the Soviet authorities an interpretation of this phrase in terms of frequency of visits. That question is still under discussion. But I agree that the spirit of the Convention is that they should be reasonably frequent.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Union is not the only place where British nationals are incarcerated? Five British nationals have been incarcerated in Bari in Southern Italy for the past 16 months.

Will the Foreign Secretary continue to press for their release?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I think that there is another Question about that today.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of the Foreign Secretary's discouraging answer to Question No. 14, will he now specify the modifications or recisions of Anglo-Russian cultural arrangements which will follow if Mr. Gerald Brooke is prosecuted a second time?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I have already spoken to the House about the serious consequences which would follow if that were to happen. I do not believe that it would be helpful to Mr. Brooke for me to say anything further at present.

Dependent and Associated States

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for improving links between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of dependent and associated states of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Whitlock: We continue to maintain the closest contact with dependent territories through their Governors or Administrators, and through visits in both directions at Ministerial and official levels. Our contacts with the Associated States are maintained through the British Government Representative in Castries, St. Lucia. This arrangement has been in existence for only two years and we are naturally keeping it under review.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister take another personal look at the relatively small requirements of personnel and assistance for which these still dependent territories are asking? Will he particularly look at the Finance Bill, which will be coming before the House, to see whether investment from this country is not further discouraged by this action?

Mr. Whitlock: All possibilities for assisting these smaller territories are now under deep discussion.

Italy (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the British subjects kept in


prison after or without trial in Italy are safe and have not suffered injury in the recent gaol disturbances.

Mr. Whitlock: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister take the occasion to renew representations to the Italian authorities, as today his right hon. Friend has been celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Council of Europe and the Charter of Human Rights, and point out that it is unacceptable that a constituent of mine, and I think one of yours, Mr. Speaker, have teen 16 months awaiting trial in Southern Italy?

Mr. Whitlock: Consular access to these prisoners is regularly permitted. We are well aware of the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Italian authorities the full sense of outrage at the denial of elementary and natural justice in detaining five men without trial for 16 months in a country a long way from their home? Will the hon. Gentleman also make representations about the prevarications of the Italian Government which has so far given four different times of trial? Will he also find out when the trial will take place?

Mr. Whitlock: There are later Questions on this subject. The Italian authorities have been made very well aware of the strong feelings held by Members of this House and by members of the public at the length of time that these prisoners have been held awaiting trial?

Mr. Marten: What action do the Government propose?

Mr. Whitlock: To continue to make those representations.

China (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in China; and in how many of these cases has consular access been refused.

Mr. M. Stewart: There are at present twelve British subjects detained without trial in China. Consular access has so

far been refused in all cases. We will continue to make representations to the Chinese for access.

Mr. Onslow: How many children are involved? When the Secretary of State speaks of making continued representations, may I ask whether this will include making it clear to the Chinese that if they persist in this inhuman conduct we must revise our attitude to their admission to the United Nations?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I am right in saying that there are two children involved.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not believe that this would be a relevant reaction. The question of the position of the Chinese in the United Nations is simply a recognition of fact. I do not think that a change of policy on that would be of any use for the purpose which we both have in mind.

Mr. Molloy: Has my right hon. Friend made it clear to the Chinese authorities that we in this House and the British people generally find their action utterly disgraceful, that it offends every tenet of decent human behaviour, and that they are tarnishing the name of the Chinese people by continuing this vulgar action?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I believe that the same sentiment has been made clear by the other countries whose nationals are similarly treated.

Mr. McMaster: What ultimatum has the right hon. Gentleman given to the Chinese? Is he aware that words are not enough and that some trade sanctions or other means must be used to compel the Chinese to act in a humane way?

Mr. Stewart: There have been a good many suggestions about action of that kind. I do not believe that any that have so far been suggested to me would help these British subjects.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether he has any information regarding my constituent, Captain Will, who has now been held for many months? This is causing great anxiety to his family. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has found out where in China he is and if he is being treated well?

Mr. Stewart: I think that I should write to my hon. Friend giving him in detail the latest information that we have. We know that he is detained for investigation into alleged violation of Chinese laws. I will try to keep my hon. Friend informed.

United States (Rhodesia)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the United States Government in the light of their decision to prevent investment income reaching the residents of Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir. Security Council Resolution No. 253 of 1968, calling for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia, requires members of the United Nations to prevent all but a very restricted range of payments and remittances to that country.

Mr. King: Is it not a fact that payments from Rhodesia to America having been stopped and payments from America to Rhodesia, the net result is that Rhodesia has profited by a very large sum of money? Even within the general context of sanctions, is not this a totally idiotic result?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has the facts correctly, and even if he had that would not be a reason for allowing the payments he has in mind.

United Nations Committee of 24

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of recent condemnations of Great Britain by the United Nations Committee of 24, whether it is his policy to continue British membership of that Committee.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Yes, Sir. Although we continue to meet criticism in the Committee, we believe that we should continue to explain our policies there.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept that there needs to be a balance between the advantages of remaining and the advantages of going, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are at least two arguments

in favour of the "empty chair"? The first is that nothing is to be gained by simply providing an Aunt Sally, and the second is that the staff of our Mission in New York are already over-extended and could do much better work than going to this rather biased Committee.

Mr. Roberts: I wholly disagree. We are not only the butt of criticism in the Committee but also a very effective member, putting forward a constructive policy of de-colonisation. The Committee is now examining the future of small States and micro-States in which we are prominently involved and to which we have a very important contribution to make.

Mr. Luard: Is my hon. Friend aware that we should be just as much of an Aunt Sally whether we were members of the Committee or not? Given that we are likely to be the subject of attacks anyway, is it not better for us to be there in order to put our point of view and defend the actions of the British Government?

Mr. Roberts: I entirely agree.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can the Minister of State tell us whether all the member nations of the Committee are up to date with their subscriptions?

Mr. Roberts: Not without notice.

Council of Europe (Greece)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has now reached about the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the subject of the suspension of Greece from that Organisation.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe he will support the Assembly's recommendation that Greece should be suspended from membership of the Council in view of the undemocratic nature of the Greek régime.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,


Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 156.]

Mr. Fraser: Is it not time to tell the House that since Greece has broken all the rules of the Council of Europe we Mould support her suspension from that Council? Does my right hon. Friend realise that if we do not support Greece's suspension it will be regarded as shameful and as a blow to every lover of freedom?

Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend is aware, the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly is to invite the Council of Ministers, having regard to the previous expression of opinion by the Assembly—with which I think everyone will sympathise—to take appropriate action within a specified period. The Council of Ministers is now meeting and has to decide what is appropriate action and what is meant by "specified period". I do not believe that it would be right for me to state now, before the Council of Ministers deals with this matter, what the decision ought to be.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend take a much more robust attitude against what is now known to everyone as a barbarous military dictatorship? Is he aware that we on this side are sick and tired of the Foreign Office seeking to please, or giving the appearance of pleasing, hon. Members opposite rather than the Government's own supporters?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend really has got this wrong. In the first place, the Government have made very clear their detestation of undemocratic and unconstitutional rule anywhere. We have left the Greek Government in no doubt about this matter. We now face the particular problem of what action it is right for the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe to take at this meeting. These are matters on which I must endeavour to act together with other members of the Council of Europe in the hope of reaching a unanimous decision.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is it not a fact that the Committee on Human Rights set up by the Council of Europe has not yet reported and that this is one factor which the Council of Ministers should have before it? Is it not also a fact that Turkey, when in a somewhat similar situation, was given a long time, was not removed

from the Council of Europe and returned to democratic processes?

Mr. Stewart: The fact that the Commission on Human Rights has still to report is a relevant factor, and this I believe is the view of many nations which are members of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon Friend aware that the report that Sweden is wavering on this question, which has been promulgated by a Foreign Office spokesman, is not true? Is he further aware that we on these benches are united in our adamant belief that it would be unforgivable if Britain showed less backbone than other nations in disembarrassing democratic organisations of régimes such as the one in Athens?

Mr. Stewart: I have been in touch with other member nations of the Council of Europe, and I assure my hon Friend that any versions that suggest that we have, as he puts it, any less backbone than the great majority of the members are without foundation.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britain is negotiating to supply a nuclear reactor to Greece? Secondly, with Greece being a fully paid up member of N.A.T.O., are we negotiating the supply of frigates to her?

Mr. Stewart: The supply of the nuclear reactor is public knowledge already. No export licences have been applied for or granted in respect of frigates. But neither of these matters is relevant to the decision in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is a body distinct from N.A.T.O. It is in no sense a military grouping. That is why a decision there would not necessarily be the same thing as a decision in N.A.T.O. That decision ought to take place in consultation in the meeting of the Council of Ministers which has still to be held and where the representative of the Greek Government will be free to make what statement he thinks right. I want to repeat something for the benefit of my hon. Friends. The suggestion that the Government have shown, as has been implied, any less resolution in trying to assert democratic principles is totally without foundation.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by his


choice of words? He referred to "detestation". Is it not the case that the Government are at present negotiating a form of barter whereby this country takes £40 million-worth of Greek tobacco which she does not want in exchange for the supply of a nuclear power station? How does he reconcile that with his choice of the word "detestation"?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must have been in the House for a long time without listening to anything if he has not grasped by now that commercial transactions are often carried out between Governments which strongly disapprove of each other's political systems. [Interruption.] I refer, of course, to commercial transactions that are not of a military nature, as this one is not. It does not apply where there is an express resolution of the Security Council, to which the Conservative Government assented, as there is in the case of arms for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Mr. Paget: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that in the circumstances it is somewhat odd that we should be showing such a marked preference for Greek tobacco as against Rhodesian tobacco, particularly when the payment is to be in nuclear capacity?

Mr. Stewart: rose—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must be allowed to answer before the right hon. member for Stafford and Stone puts his point of order.

Mr. Stewart: When my hon. Friend tries to equate Greece with Rhodesia he forgets two things: first, that there are some very important United Nations decisions about Rhodesia and, secondly, that it is in rebellion against the Crown.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Owing to the confusion of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice should be given in the conventional way.

Mr. Stewart: Further to that point of order. May I raise the matter on the

Adjournment owing to the confusion of the right hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker: That would be unique in Parliamentary procedure.

Greek Foreign Minister (Meeting)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his meeting on 16th April, 1969, with the Greek Foreign Minister.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any assurances from Mr. Pipinelis about the return to democratic rule and whether anything was said to him which would lend credibility to those assurances, since other words spoken by Greek leaders, especially Mr. Papadopoulos, bore no shred of truth or credibility in them?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. These discussions were confidential.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I accept that much of what takes place in these discussions must remain confidential, but can my right hon. Friend at least assure the House that he told the Greek Foreign Minister of the abhorrence with which the Greek régime is viewed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House? Furthermore, did my right hon. Friend discuss the question of arms supplies?

Mr. Stewart: I repeat: the discussions were confidential. As I have already said, the Greek Government are well aware of our views of the situation in Greece.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Labour Organisation decided to take Greece back only 14 days ago?

Mr. Stewart: That is a different question.

Hong Kong (Mainland Tunnel)

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Hong Kong Government with their plans for the construction of a tunnel between Hong Kong and the mainland.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Hong Kong Government are prospective shareholders in a limited company known as the Cross Harbour Tunnel Company to which they have awarded a franchise for the construction of a tunnel between Hong Kong Island and the mainland. That company, having recently reached agreement in principle with Lloyds Bank on the provision of loan finance, is now proceeding to detailed negotiations with a consortium led by Costain Civil Engineering Limited and hope that the contract will be signed this month.

Mr. Atkins: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department has agreed to underwrite this project? Does he realise that the people of Hong Kong are eagerly waiting for some practical sign like this of the Government's faith in the political future of the Colony?

Mr. Roberts: It would be better if the hon. Member were to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Atkins: He will not accept it.

Mr. Roberts: In that case I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and convey it with due force to my right hon. Friend.

European Economic Community (Commission Regulations)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to public funds pf the translation and publication of regulations issued by the Commission of the European Economic Community in Brussels; and how long this service will be continued.

Mr. M. Stewart: The cost to public funds of translating and reproducing regulations and other documents issued by the European Economic Communities is estimated at £32,000 in 1969. The service will continue indefinitely.

Mr. Molloy: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is now unnecessary expenditure? Does not he think that he should collaborate with some of his right hon. Friends—especially the Minister for Social Security and other Ministers in his Department—to see if this could make a contribution towards preventing other harsh measures which may be envisaged?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree that this is an unnecessary service. The Community—whatever our relationship to it—is one of our major trading partners and we must be fully cognizant with the legislation of the Community. Moreover, as an applicant for membership it is particularly essential that we should keep abreast of all developments.

Mr. Kirk: Is not this £32,000 an extremely cheap way of informing British businessmen of the sort of situation that they may face when trading in the Community?

Mr. Stewart: We have taken care to see that it is run with maximum efficiency at the lowest cost.

United Nations Disarmament Committee

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Disarmament Committee.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee is considering further arms control measures in the nuclear and non-nuclear fields, to follow up the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Particular attention is being paid to the questions of a comprehensive nuclear test ban, arms control on the seabed, and a ban on biological methods of warfare. Further details were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech to the Committee on 17th April, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Does he realise that the work referred to in the Question is symbolic of the best in our modern civilisation, and will he do his part in the Government to promote it?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. It is true that a large proportion of the initiatives now being taken on disarmament are being taken by the British Government.

Yugoslavia Agreement (Abolition of Visas)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to sign the agreement with Yugoslavia providing for the mutual abolition of visas.

Mr. Whitlock: The Agreement was signed in Belgrade on 29th April and is due to come into force on 14th May, 1969.

Mr. Lubbock: May I say that I am grateful to the hon. Members at the Foreign Office for taking so much trouble over this matter and reaching a satisfactory conclusion after nearly a year's negotiations?

Mr. Whitlock: indicated assent.

ANGUILLA

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise this point of order, which concerns Anguilla. I have two points to put to you, both of which, I submit, are out of order in this House.
First of all, the Foreign Secretary told us some days ago that there had been a case of murder in Anguilla. It is now within the recollection of the House—it was spoken a few seconds ago—that there had not been any charge of murder whatsoever. It has now been reduced, at best, to an alleged case of manslaughter, and I submit that it is wholly wrong that this House should be used to charge that there was murder when there was no murder, and when the trial has yet to take place.
The second aspect of my point of order concerns the White Paper. The Foreign Secretary undertook to consider—I understood, sympathetically—the publication of a White Paper so that these matters could be set out on the record. Am I correct in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn that undertaking, which was given in a previous Answer?

Mr. Marten: On precisely the same point of order. I have here the quotation from HANSARD. The Foreign Secretary specifically said, "cases of murder". We are now told by the Under-Secretary of State that it was in the singular and not in the plural.
Second, on the question of the arson, the Answer which we were given today has been misleading, because one case of arson was purely a commercial case of arson and in the other there was no evidence of arson as such. We are getting into a position where we are not getting

the truth out of Foreign Office Ministers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not drift, when raising points of order, into points of argument between hon. Members and Ministers with whose Answers they are not satisfied.
I cannot comment on the question of murder, singular, or murders, plural, arson, or the promise or otherwise or the failure or otherwise to issue a White Paper. The only point of order which concerns me was that I heard that a case was still on trial, and therefore I ruled that the House could not discuss it, because it would be sub judice.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Foreign Secretary will realise that he used very specific words—"cases of arson", "cases of murder". Would he take an early opportunity to clear up this matter personally?

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The actual words which I used were "cases of arson and murder". I did not intend to mean that both of those were in the plural. If I gave the House that impression, I apologise and I regret it. There seemed to be reason to believe that the case which has now been reduced to manslaughter was a case of murder.
The House will remember that the point which I was making was the general lawlessness of the island, which prevented these cases being brought to trial. If they could have been dealt with in the proper way, if law and order had been prevailing in the island, it would not have been necessary for me to make this reference at all. But the substance of what I said was true, that the law was being defied, that serious crimes were being committed, and that it was necessary to restore law and order in the island.
Since the further point of the White Paper has been raised, I should say that I promised no more than to consider whether one is necessary. I am still prepared, as I made clear this afternoon, to consider that, but I am bound to say that the amount of fresh argument for having one which hon. Members have so far produced I do not find very impressive.

Viscount Lambton: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not on a point of order at the moment. We are on a point of difference of opinion between both sides of the House. We cannot launch a debate under the guise of a point of order. I can only take points of order if they are real points of order.

Viscount Lambton: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that it was not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, it must be a new one.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I am sure that you will accept, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter for the order of the House that a person, a citizen of the British Commonwealth, under trial, should not be the subject of a statement in the privilege of this House that he has been guilty of murder. It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was on my side. I am ruling with reference to a citizen who is under trial on a grave charge. The matter is sub judice, and cannot be pursued further.

Viscount Lambton: On a separate point of order. Is it in order for a Minister in the other place to say one thing and the Under-Secretary of State to say another? Or is that a matter of argument between the two?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are not going back to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). We have heard with great respect what you have said, Mr. Speaker. Was it, then, in order, at the time of the debate on Anguilla, for the Foreign Secretary to refer to the case of a British subject in the island of Anguilla against whom a charge of murder, which has since been reduced to manslaughter, was pending? Was it right for him to mention that case and thus prejudice the case of this British subject?

Mr. Speaker: All I am concerned with is whether it was sub judice. I cannot rule retrospectively on sub judice matters. From what the Foreign Secretary said, I gather that the man was not on trial at that stage.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order—

Mr. Paget: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to reduce the number of points of order, but I am not prepared to shorten the time by taking two at once.

TRANSFER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. I wish to raise a point of order concerning the consequences for hon. Members of a transfer of Questions. I have never raised such a matter in the past, when, for instance, a Question has been transferred from the Prime Minister to a departmental head, but there arises here a matter of principle, in my submission. I do not want to go into the matter, so I shall refer to it only in general terms.
A Question concerning—as is the established practice in the House—a responsibility of the Foreign Secretary, for approval of the export of military transport or any other means to be used in warfare, which I put down, has been transferred, after having been accepted by the Table, to which I submitted the usual reputable evidence, without which they would never have accepted it in the first place, to the Minister of Technology.
This has removed it from the list of Oral Questions to those which will have Written Answers, but, more important—this is the only reason that I am raising the matter—it is an accepted rule that, if a Question has once been answered, it cannot be put down again in exactly the same terms. Has a back bencher any remedy after such a transfer, which has ruled out his questioning the Foreign Secretary in the House, when, at the same time, he will be precluded, if the Answer is not satisfactory, from resubmitting the same Question to the Foreign Secretary?
This is surely a decision of an administrative transfer, which should be the subject of debate in the House, with the public listening in.

Mr. Speaker: I am seized of the point of order and it is an important one. It has not been unknown before. It is for a Minister to decide whether he wishes to transfer an hon. Member's Question to another Minister. I cannot intervene in that; nor can the Table. It is courteous for the Minister to inform the hon. Member if such a Question is transferred. If he did so, I do not think that the eventuality which the hon. Member has mentioned, of its being transferred from an Oral to a Written Question, could have arisen.

Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. Perhaps I may say immediately that I received a letter from an official at the Foreign Office informing me about this in good time. But can you not give us some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of principle, whether a Question can then be resubmitted if the answer is unsatisfactory? Otherwise, a back bencher has no remedy at all.

Mr. Speaker: I am in great difficulty. I should have to consider the particular case to find why it emerged as a Written Answer and not an Oral one.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do want to get on.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance in a matter concerning points of order, Mr. Speaker? I refer to the practice whereby longish statements are made from both Front Benches on points of order which you have previously held not to be points of order. Should that serve as a precedent for future occasions?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had indicated my attitude to that, but I am glad to have the reinforcement of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if, at this point, I dealt with the point which was raised during Question Time by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), and which I dealt with in a cursory manner.
The hon. Gentleman was worried about the Answer to Question No. 7 containing an answer to his Question No. 32. If he looks at the two Questions he will see that they are almost identical. They differ in one substantial point, and that was why the Answer to the first Question included much of the answer to the second. I consider that it would not be right for a Minister to answer one Question and at the same time be answering another if he did not indicate that fact to the House.
As for the rule applying to anticipation, I might reinforce the fact that since an answer was given in reply to a supplementary arising from Question No. 22, which really arose out of Question No. 24, it is not in order to anticipate another hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I wish to apologise to the hon. Member concerned. The occurrence was entirely inadvertent on my part and I am genuinely sorry that it happened.

Mr. Speaker: No reproof is meant.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful for what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, but, with respect, I submit that if the substantial difference was the phrase "Royal Naval … personnel" compared with "Royal Marines", then it is not a substantial point because the Corps of Royal Marines, to which I belong, is part of the naval forces and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to argue the detail of the matter to that fine degree. I have given my Ruling.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on his consideration of the application for assistance from Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Yes, Sir. The Upper Clyde Shipbuilders have submitted a corporate plan to the Shipbuilding Industry Board with a request for grants to cover present and expected losses and loans for capital equipment.
The Shipbuilding Industry Board has considered this request, and other possibilities, and has discussed the matter both with U.C.S. and myself. I cannot disclose exchanges that have taken place between the U.C.S., the S.I.B., and myself without revealing confidential commercial information.
However, I expect to make a statement on further S.I.B. support for shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde in the next few days.

Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the seriousness of the situation, which was confirmed by the statement of U.S.C. over the weekend, requires a restoration of confidence so that orders may continue to be placed, remembering that up to 14,000 jobs are involved?
Since the Government sponsored this merger on the Upper Clyde, and since the new managing team was given three years in which to put it into effective operation, are not the Government under some obligation to give necessary help at this early stage?

Mr. Benn: I am very well aware indeed of the position. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that I regard the statement which was made by the Chairman of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders over the weekend as completely irresponsible, because he knew very well that the case was under consideration. By making that statement he has created a great deal of confusion. It has made a realistic assessment of the position more difficult.
I appreciate that the livelihood of a large number of people is involved. The hon. Gentleman should know that substantial help has been given to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and that I visited the yard twice during the last three months and have been in almost daily contact with all those concerned.

Mr. Rankin: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Would he agree that the situation, as I found it at U.C.S. over the weekend, is extremely serious and has been giving the Board a great deal of concern? Ls he also aware that the seriousness of the situation is causing much discontent among the men? Does my right hon. Friend realise that if something disastrous were to happen there, then even the regional

policy which the Government have prepared or are in the process of preparing for Scotland may be damaged? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend give the most serious consideration to that aspect of the problem and see that sufficient aid is given to U.C.S. to help it out of these difficulties; that sufficient money, not doles from month to month, is given?

Mr. Benn: I assure my hon. Friend that I am very well aware of the difficulties. I must, however, reiterate what I said: that it is extremely difficult to maintain confidence in a group, which has serious inherited problems to overcome, if public statements are made such as that to which I referred. I have met members of the board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders on eight occasions during the last three months. It is extremely difficult if public statements of this kind are made to solve these difficulties.
The House should recall that U.C.S. has received about £3 million of the £10 million grants that have been committed, that it has received £5½ million in loans out of the £14 million loans committed, and that we are doing our very best to create a viable shipbuilding operation on the Upper Clyde. I must ask the House to allow me to conduct confidential negotiations with the people concerned without the sort of Press campaign which has been waged over this case.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in a situation in which liquidation hangs over this company this very weekend, with the jobs of 13,500 men at stake, it is essential that we have a decision from the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a precise answer and say what amount of money will be made available and the terms on which he is prepared to offer it? Is he aware that anything less than a long-term decision in this matter must cause a further lack of confidence?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that the hon. Lady knows the situation very well indeed and is anxious to help. She must recognise that there is no safety net beneath any firm or industry in this country.


She will appreciate that there are some very formidable problems to be faced.
In March, I went to the Clyde at a time when absenteeism was running at the rate of 16 per cent., at a time when, in the four weeks before I arrived, 10,000 days had been lost through unofficial stoppages and at a time when the steel throughput was lower than the national average.
I addressed 10 meetings, including meetings at which most of the people working in the yards and the members of the board were present, and I had to tell them that there was no safety net beneath them and that the future of U.C.S. would be decided by the work that was done by management and men on the Clyde with Government help, which we have been ready to give and which we are still anxious to consider.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept that it is vitally important that the short-term commitments of the group be met and that if the unviable components of the group must be phased out, as some people suspect, it is the responsibility of the Government to launch a major retraining and re-employment programme?

Mr. Benn: We accept the responsibility which we have undertaken in setting up the Shipbuilding Industry Board under the Act which Parliament passed, through which we handed over responsibility to a group of industrialists and trade unionists, putting at their disposal £53½ million to carry through the reorganisation with the object to creating a viable concern. I have neither the power nor the responsibility to sidetrack the work of the Board to maintain indefinitely security for those who ultimately must themselves become viable.

Mr. Bence: Notwithstanding the inherited difficulties of U.C.S., and since the company has a very large order book—an order book of a size which I doubt any other company in this country could produce profitably—will my right hon. Friend see that the resources of the Clyde, whether by U.C.S. or others, are used to comply with that order book and fulfil the obligations to its customers which U.C.S. has undertaken?

Mr. Benn: I recognise this, but only the profitable discharge of orders will guarantee security of employment for the people working on Upper Clyde. In view of the problems of absenteeism, unofficial stoppages and totally irresponsible statements of the kind made over the weekend, it is extremely difficult for those of us who are devoting a great deal of effort to seeing that U.C.S. succeeds, to achieve our task. However, I remain confident that that can be done.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a statement to explain why this enterprise has proved so unprofitable and why these losses have arisen? Will he also issue a statement, in clear terms, to explain to the management and men that there is a limit to which the State can go in subsidising them indefinitely?

Mr. Benn: I have explained that I went to the Clyde and addressed 10 meetings there to point out to the men on the spot as well as to the board the position concerning their desire for long-term support. We should not forget that their inheritance—this had better be clearly stated—includes an inheritance of bad management. This is one of the problems, though not the only one, which the Clyde must face.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members opposite argue that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders should be given or lent £12 million of public money over the next three years, and that that suggestion comes oddly from an Opposition who ask for decreased public expenditure? But will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if public money is put into Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, there will be a good degree of public accountability and a guarantee of a return to the State?

Mr. Bean: As to the Government's interest, we are departmentally shareholders in the Upper Clyde operation, through the Fairfield operation.
As to the view of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) pledged in his television broadcast on the Budget that he would repeal the Industrial Expansion Act, without which Upper Clyde would not have been able to operate.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the Clyde builds naval vessels? Would it not be wise, in the predicament in which the Government find themselves, to go out to attract rewarding new business, including the business available today for three modern frigates for Greece?

Mr. Benn: The question of the export of products raises another matter. I would be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman was really advocating that the various restrictions on the export of arms, including the arrangements made between ourselves and our allies, should be totally abandoned to meet the problem which currently confronts us.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend has been engaged in confidential discussions with U.C.S. Will he agree that in view of the large sums that have been mentioned, ranging from £9 million to £15 million, it is desirable that before any further sums are handed over to U.C.S. the House should have an opportunity to discuss the organisation of that concern and, in particular, not only the question of absenteeism, which we deplore, but the need for expert management?

Mr. Benn: I recognise what my right hon. Friend has in mind, but it will be very difficult—indeed wrong—to ask the House to look in detail at the management problems of any of the firms with which we deal. That would be asking too much—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I mean in the sort of detail that some hon. Members might like.
But may I take the opportunity given to me by my right hon. Friend's intervention to repudiate entirely—and he will share this view—the suggestion that there has been any pressure put on me or representations made to me from hon. Members representing North-East or other shipbuilding areas not to help Upper Clyde. That is totally untrue.

Mr. David Price: To assist the House, would the right hon. Gentleman have placed in the Library the corporate plan, which I understand was prepared by Upper Clyde and sent to the S.I.B. and the Minister, so that the House can the better evaluate the proposal put forward by the board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? As to the board's proposals

for long-term viability, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we cannot argue in the particular which is necessary in this case without seeing the proposal put by the board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.

Mr. Benn: I will consider that suggestion. Some information was published yesterday. No one will know better than the hon. Gentleman the difficulty, when Government are deeply involved with industry, of revealing public matters which involve the commercial viability of a company, whether in shipbuilding, aircraft, or defence. Subject to that, I will see how much information can be made available.
The point at issue is that the corporate plan, with previous support, would require Upper Clyde pre-empting more than 50 per cent. of the grants made available by this House for the whole of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry—that is, before the Wear or the Lower Clyde have qualified for any grant at all.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Statement. The Secretary of State for Social Services.

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not now—later.

SPECTACLE LENSES AND DENTURES (CHARGES)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on charges for lenses and dentures.
I propose shortly to lay before the House regulations increasing by about 25 per cent. the charges payable by patients in England and Wales for dentures and spectacle lenses supplied under the National Health Service. Similar increases will be made in Scotland.
These increases, which are broadly in line with movements in cost since the charges were last adjusted in 1961, will help to keep total public expenditure within the limits set out in the White


Paper "Public Expenditure 1968–1969 to 1970–1971"—Cmnd. 3936.
The present arrangements for exemptions and refunds will continue.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to satisfy the curiosity of the whole House by telling us just how near the Prime Minister got to reacting to this statement of increased charges in the same way as he reacted to the original imposition of charges.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman four questions. First, what relation do the new charges, compared with the original charges, bear to the total cost? Perhaps, in this context, he will say something about the charges for frames. Second, can he assure the House that the arrangements for and nature of priority classes remain unchanged? Third, can he tell the House whether he expects this increase in charges to produce the same sort of switch of more treatment in priority classes that the original imposition achieved? Fourth, in view of his denial on 14th April of any increase in charges, will he tell the House when he intends next to increase prescription charges?

Mr. Crossman: Answering the last question first, I must point out that the statement I then made in answer to a supplementary question was that I was not introducing further charges or increases in prescription charges. Those were the two precise statements I made.
On the question of priority, the priority classes remain completely unchanged in this arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the relation between the cost of the charges as compared with their first introduction. I would want notice of that question, but I did compare the charge with 1961, the last time the charges were introduced. Dentures will, after this change, be just under 50 per cent.: they were just over 50 per cent. then.
On average, lenses will be just a little over cost, as they were in 1961, and also, I think I am right, in 1951. So the proportion has been maintained. Indeed, the purpose of the increase is to maintain that proportion.

Mr. Michael Foot: Since many of us will be very deeply shocked by these proposals, will the Secretary of State say how much money it is estimated these charges will bring in for the Health Service? Will he take into account the fact that many of us feel that, if these charges are imposed because of a ceiling on the Health Service, that ceiling should be altered rather than that we should impose fresh charge on people who need these special facilities?

Mr. Crossman: The amount we estimate in a full year is £3·5 million, and in the current year the amount will be just over £1·7 million.
My hon. Friend asked whether this change meant that there was a ceiling on the Health Service. The answer is "No". The Service has had a fairly steady increase over a period, but we have to seek in the Service, as everywhere else, the most economical management. In my view, although my hon. Friend may differ, this method of saving £3·5 million is far less damaging than would be cutting back one of the increases in the Service to which we are committed. I have no doubt that this was a lesser evil.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the charge for a denture will be £6 10s. when the new charges come in? Will he say how this accords with the principle that illness ought not to be financially penalised? Does he recognise that this is a very heavy poll tax on low income families and particularly old-age pensioners? Will he re-emphasise for those concerned exactly how they can get it back in supplementary benefit?

Mr. Crossman: The exemptions and refunds which were there before are not, of course, affected by this increase, nor, indeed, is the principle about which he asked, whether one could get back charges for dentures and spectacles. We had the charges before; the only question is at what level should the charges be maintained in view of costs.
In reply to the hon. Member's first question, about the actual price, I think that his calculation is slightly wrong. The increase is from £5 to £6 5s., not £6 10s.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dismaying statement he has made will be energetically fought inside and outside the House of


Commons in the weeks and months to follow? May I remind my right hon. Friend that tomorrow will be the anniversary of an occasion when he made a speech in this House opposing the first imposition of the charges. He then described them as a money-raising—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No matter how tempting, there can be no quotations in supplementary questions.

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman rose—

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Griffiths rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must complete his question without quotation. Mr. Will Griffiths.

Mr. Griffiths: May I therefore recommend my right hon. Friend to have a look at what he said then and to say how he can possibly equate what he is doing today with the unexceptionable sentiment he uttered on that occasion?

Mr. Crossman: I am not sure to which occasion my hon. Friend has referred—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I should have thought that this was not in the debate on the introduction of prescription charges but in a debate, if it occurred, on this particular question of dentures and spectacles, which have always been distinguished from prescription charges.
I have no doubt that hon. Members behind me who feel strongly will fight against this proposal. There is one thing to be remembered, however, about these charges. Although my hon. Friends may feel passionately, there is no evidence that the general public are as fiercely opposed to them.

Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why as recently as 14th April he quite categorically said that he did not expect further charges to be imposed on the Health Service? Was that not as tricky as announcing increased National Insurance benefits and not at the same time announcing how they would be paid for?

Mr. Crossman: The noble Lord will observe the question I was answering. I was asked a question about further examples of selectivity. It was clear that I was being asked whether we would extend the principle of charges beyond the present level of prescription charges

and teeth and spectacles. I said, "No", and that is correct.

Dr. John Dunwoody: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the suggestion that deficiencies in the Health Service can be met only by increases in these charges is repugnant to many of us on this side of the House and that his suggestion that there should be an automatic relationship between the level of charges and the cost of the services concerned seems to be introducing a new principle into the whole question of charges? Will he assure the House dogmatically that this principle will not be applied to prescription charges?

Mr. Crossman: The point I made is that in the case of these particular charges for dentures and spectacles a rough relation between cost and charge has been maintained on the three occasions—or the two occasions—when we have had to change them. We sought in the change to make the relation so in those cases. This does not apply to prescription charges, because each must be judged on merits in application.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is this latest announcement one of a series to follow the Budget Statement until eventually the whole picture is filled in for all the necessities of life which are now to be taxed? Will the right hon Gentleman also say on what logic he selects for this treatment only those who are short-sighted or long-sighted, or who have difficulty with their teeth? What about the other faculties? Why are those not brought into the same bracket?

Mr. Crossman: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody), it is not a question of expansion of the service being only possible, but how one uses money most wisely and avoids what otherwise would be necessary, a slowing-down of the process we want to achieve owing to the weight of the cost. If I am asked about teeth and spectacles, charges have been imposed for these from time to time and the charges have to be adjusted. There is no issue of a new principle there.

Dr. Summerskill: May I remind my right hon. Friend of Labour's election pledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was to abolish all charges.


[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Why should the edentulous and the myopic be expected to correct our balance of payments?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that quotation from the election manifesto. I am sure that we all do hope that in due course all charges could be abolished, but I should be deceiving·[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Too much noise does not help.

Mr. Crossman: I should be deceiving my hon. Friend and the House if I suggested to her that I thought a total remission of all charges had a priority as high as looking after a number of very urgent areas of the Service—including, for instance, hospitals for the subnormal.

Mr. Pavitt: Does this mean and financially irrelevant decision mean that the Government have finally repudiated the pledge, which I am not permitted to quote but which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT for May, 1952, col. 1776, when Hilary Marquand on behalf of the Attlee leadership specifically pledged that charges including those for dentures and spectacles would be removed? Does this statement repudiate the unanimous decision of the Labour Party conference last year that these charges should be removed?

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the previous question. The answer is, "No", there is no final repudiation.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: The right hon. Gentleman stated that this will cost £3½ million. Does he realise that his predecessor told us when the prescription charges were put up that they would cost £27 million and they cost almost £50 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this estimate will be equally accurate?

Mr. Crossman: I should like notice of that question. I do not recall my predecessor anticipating the cost, but the yield. I do not think that the estimate was far out and I think that this estimate will be as correct.

Mr. Lomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be

described as naive, stupid, or courageous in the local elections this week, and that I regard it as naive and stupid? It is in direct violation of every principle of the Labour Party when we said that we would have a Health Service free of charge in time of need.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot think that an increase to a charge introduced many years ago could be a violation of a principle. This is an extension of a practice and that is somewhat different.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the little local criticism he has run into this afternoon, the great majority of the public—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If so, there is too much noise from the minority at the moment.

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of the public will regard his new charges as a realistic approach to financing the Health Service, which everybody knows is far too short of money; and that everybody also knows that the general public are not willing to accept further increases in general taxation to pay for it, but would much rather have increases in charges of this kind?

Mr. Crossman: I hope that the general public will take the view, which my hon. Friend claims that it will, in the narrow term of these charges. However, if he were to imply that these charges indicate a view by me that a wide extension of charges is preferable to taxation, this is absolutely untrue, because in my view charges are matters of limited utility at the best and the public must face the fact that the major cost of the Health Service will in future always have to be borne by taxation.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the matter having been settled in principle, does he refer to 1951 Act, which the present Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman himself said was fundamentally in contradiction to their own personal and political principles? When he speaks of the level of charges, will he identify to the House the opportunities, whether by way of vote on Statutory Instruments or


otherwise, that hon. Gentlemen behind him will have of expressing the opposition by vote as well as by voice which they evidently have?

Mr. Crossman: When the regulations art laid there will be the normal debate and it will be ended in the usual method in this House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about principles is the kind of interesting historical question on which I think two or three opinions could be held reasonably.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose·

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order. I raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, because on 14th April in this House, in answer to a supplementary question, in c. 771, my right hon. Friend said—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should give the sense of the quotation.

Mr. Orme: —that there would be no increase in Health Service charges. These are Health Service charges.
We ask you, Sir, to protect us in this matter. The obvious contradiction between my right hon. Friend's statement today and what he said on 14th April should be corrected. Could you, Mr. Speaker, call on my right hon. Friend to correct this?

Mr. Crossman: I wish, Sir, that you had allowed my hon. Friend to make the quotation, because this matter can be discussed only in terms of the actual words which I used. I answered two supplementary questions on that occasion—one about whether I believed that we would extend the system of charging in the Health Service further. I said, "No." The second was specifically about an increase in prescription charges. I said, "No" to that. I was not asked about charges other than prescription charging.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will not attempt to pursue the debate by dint of points of order.

Mi. Powell: On a point of order. I understood you, Mr. Speaker, when an hon. Member raised with you just now a point which was raised as a point of

order, to object to his quoting from something previously said in the House. Is it out of order, in raising a point of order, to quote what is reported to have been said? If so, it is difficult to understand how many genuine points of order could properly be raised with you.

Mr. Speaker: I have always understood that the rule about supplementary questions applies to points of order in the same way. I admit that it puts the Minister in an advantage, because he can give the actual quotation.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Minister of Technology to give a decisive answer today"—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to intervene when an hon. Gentleman or an hon. Lady seeks to apply for leave under Standing Order No. 9.

Miss Harvie Anderson: —namely,
the failure of the Minister of Technology to give a decisive answer today as to the amount and terms of support which he will give to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
The matter is specific in that the money sought is required this week to fulfil the company's commitments for wages and essential materials. It is important in that the labour force—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the hon. Lady.

Miss Harvie Anderson: It is important in that the labour force is 13,500 strong and the men there have a right to know where their livelihood is to come from. It is urgent in that steel supplies, except on a cash basis, are already cut off and the delay of even one more day erodes such confidence and goodwill as remain and upon which future orders, themselves the life blood of the industry depend.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks leave to move the Adjournment of the


House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Minister of Technology to give a decisive answer today as to the amount and terms of support which he will give to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
The hon. Lady was kind enough to give notice to me this morning that she might be seeking to raise this point of order.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Lady has made, and I listened to the statement in question, but I have to rule that the hon. Lady's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit her application to the House.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Health and Welfare Services in Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Peart.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th April], That the Clause (Amendment of section 17 of Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954), proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be read a Second time.
To section 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1954 (Securities in which the Commissioners may invest) there shall be added the following sub-paragraph of subsection (1):—
(e) In equity shares'.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Question again proposed.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that we were debating the Second Reading of new Clause 11 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). In our debates on the Bill last week we drifted into very long speeches from time to time. May I point out that we have many Amendments to discuss in what seems likely to be a long sitting today. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be reasonably brief when called. I venture to remind the House of an old saying, that speeches, to be immortal, need not be eternal. I do not know who had the Floor.

Mr. John Hay: No one had the Floor, Mr. Speaker. If I recollect, the Postmaster-General had just sat down, having made what I thought was a completely inadequate answer to the very important and useful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). The Clause would enable the Post Office Savings Bank to invest in equity shares. I need not traverse the ground covered by my hon. Friend in pointing out the declining value of gilt-edged securities in which, I understand, the Post Office Savings Bank is at present obliged to invest.
I hope that the Postmaster-General has had further thoughts on this matter over the weekend. Whatever may have been the historical reasons for requiring the Post Office Savings Bank to invest only in gilt-edged securities, the country's economic climate has changed so much during the intervening years that this has


become an important matter which we ought to discuss.
Equity shares have shown tremendous advances. They have more than kept pace, on balance, with the growth of inflation in the economy over the past 20 years, yet we have the extraordinary state of affairs that gilt-edged securities have shown a decline during that period. I am no mathematician, but I am sure that it would be possible to show how the true net value of the Post Office Savings Bank's investments in gilt-edged securities has declined over the years.
In reply to the case put by my hon. Friend, the Postmaster-General, I thought, was about to make the point—perhaps I headed him off before he really made it—that there was something rather odd in the suggestion coming from this side of the House that money entrusted to the Government should be invested in equity shares because it was contrary to our belief that the Government should not take a stake in private industry.
As I tried to make clear to the right hon. Gentleman in an intervention, that is a false point. As he himself had to admit, the situation of the Post Office Savings Bank and those who control it, and of the National Debt Commissioners, is a fiduciary one and they are, therefore, not the servants or agents of the Government. In the circumstances, it would be wrong for any hon. Member opposite to think that there was something unusual, abnormal or contrary to Conservative Party policy in the suggestion that money invested by millions of people in the Post Office Savings Bank should not have open to it the most lucrative form of investment.
That is all I wish to say. I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, your indication to us a few minutes ago that speeches should be brief. In conclusion, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to ask the leave of the House to speak again in reply to this serious point. It is no time-wasting manoeuvre. My hon. Friend's suggestion ought to be adopted. It is high time that it was done. The range of investments open to the Post Office Savings Bank should be spread, and this Bill gives us an important, and in some ways unique, legislative opportunity to do it.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Before the hon. Gentleman

resumes his seat, perhaps I could answer his courteous question and make clear to him and to the House that I have no wish to add to what I said in the debate last Wednesday evening, reported in columns 1584–8 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to add one dot to, and cross one "t" of, the substantial appeal just made to the Postmaster-General by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). If the new Clause is rejected, the Post Office Savings Bank will not stand all square with the practice of the trustee savings banks. The Postmaster-General will know that light has dawned in that quarter and investments placed in the special department of the trustee savings banks have in recent years, I understand, been eligible for investment by those who look after the money so entrusted in a fairly narrow range of equity shares and blue-chip stocks.
It is unsatisfactory that potential investors in the Post Office Savings Bank should be discriminated against in this way. The Post Office Savings Bank system is a very convenient one for many people, particularly for the large numbers who have to call regularly at the post office for their weekly financial transactions, taking small sums out of the Savings Bank, collecting pensions, buying stamps, and so on.
Deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are one form of Government borrowing which does not increase the supply of money in the economy. Money lent to the Government in the form of non-marketable securities in no way increases or extends the credit base of the banking system. It seems most desirable, therefore, that everything possible should be done to encourage small savers in this sector of saving.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the question of money supply is now extremely pressing in the United Kingdom's economy. He will have read in the newspapers today that Mr. Richard Goode, of the I.M.F., has just completed his stocktaking of the financial position here, and that one of the undertakings which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him in respect of the money supply was that he would do his best to control it.
Government borrowing on short-dated marketable securities has a tendency to increase the credit base of the economy, and Government borrowing, when they have to do it through the banking system because no one else will lend to them, has a colossally multiplying effect on the money supply in the economy. On the other hand, one of the few sectors in which Government borrowing has no effect on the credit base is borrowing through non-marketable securities such as trustee savings bank or Post Office Savings Bank deposits.
It is irrational, therefore, that the Postmaster-General is not taking steps at this time to put the Post Office Savings Bank on the same footing as the trustee savings banks, particularly when the Post Office system is of such convenience for the small saver. People should be encouraged not to be net withdrawers from this source, but to lend to the Government in this way through non-marketable securities. So many people go to the Post Offices that it would enormously facilitate the uphill work of those who promote and run the National Savings movement. Moreover, this is a change which the right hon. Gentleman could rationally make to help back up the work of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The average rate of interest which the Government are at present paying on all the money which they borrow—this was given in an Answer last week—is about 7 per cent. It seems reasonable, to say the least, that the Government should face the need and the possibility of bringing the interest which they pay on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank up to the level which they are paying for most of their borrowing. Why should they get away with paying 2½ per cent. or whatever it is, which is all—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the new Clause,. which would merely give the Commissioners power to invest in equities.

Mr. Alison: I accept your injunction, Mr. Speaker, but it remains true that, if it were possible for the Commissioners to invest in blue-chip equity stocks, they could afford to pay a much higher rate than they are at present paying.
The Postmaster-General will appreciate that there is much more at stake here than the simple mechanical continuation of a long-established practice, which even the Radcliffe Committee thought a little odd when it considered it in 1958. He would do the country and·more important, perhaps, from his point of view—the Chancellor of the Exchequer a great service if he really encouraged small savers through the Post Office savings movement by letting them have their investments reinvested in blue-chip stocks, thereby making it possible for them to have a better return.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has initiated a useful debate, which not only focuses attention on the type of investment by the Director of Savings but forces us to look slightly more carefully at the overall performance of national savings vis-à-vis the small saver.
I was very disappointed by the Postmaster-General's reply. He did not seem to take this point, which was the real point of the debate. My right hon. Friend showed very forcibly that the national savings media have been an unsatisfactory place for the small saver's money in an era of rapid inflation. It is the small saver, the person without expert professional advice, who can lose out in such a period of rapid changes in money values.
In 1965, when we debated the Post Office Savings Bank Act, I pointed out that while the amount owed by the Post Office Savings Bank to depositors was about £1,800 million the market value of its investments was only £1,600 million. There was a deficiency of about £200 million in that fund, and having regard to the way the gilt-edged market has gone since then, I imagine that that position has become much worse. I would make it clear that there is a Government guarantee here, so that no small saver is likely to lose money, but it is a terrible indictment of the way in which the funds of the small saver are managed that such a situation should occur.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave some very interesting figures last month. Asked in a Parliamentary Question what rate of interest would have to


be paid to a saver to give him 3 per cent. after tax at the standard rate, and to make up for the decline during the year in the purchasing power of his pound, he said that it was about 12 per cent.
There may be two or three distinct views on the desirability of investment in equities in the present political climate, and under the present methods of control which the Government have over these matters directly or indirectly. Is it desirable that the Post Office Savings Bank, a branch of the Government, should have a large holding of ordinary shares unless one can work out an absolutely foolproof method of ensuring that such holdings are used absolutely independently; that they are not used as a branch of public policy by any Government; that they are not used to support a form of political dogma; and that they are not used to build up a large shareholding to enable a future Government to take a large slice of particular firms or a major position in any industry?
These matters all merit much wider debate than we can have today, but they would have to be considered, and one would have to be strongly convinced on them before one could be sure that this was necessarily a wise course to follow.
Another question to consider is whether, from the point of view of the small saver who wishes to take an investment in equities, national savings in any form are the best media. There are alternative vehicles for such investment which would perhaps have slightly more effective management, and would, therefore, encourage me to look more in their direction.
Whilst we have had a very useful debate, I am sure that my hon. Friend will not wish to press the new Clause to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 12

AMENDMENT OF SECTION 5 OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACT 1954

Section 5 of the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1954 (Payment of interest on Deposits) shall be amended by substituting the words 'Bank rate' for the words 'two pounds ten shillings per cent. perannum.'.—[Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I must begin by apologising for my absence from the debates on Wednesday. I was absent in the pursuit of duty, in the company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), investigating in the field the operation of the Betting Levy, with a view to our debates on the Finance Bill.
But I have had the advantage of reading the debates, and I was particularly interested in the debate on new Clause 11, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencenster and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is not here at present. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity he has brought to these matters and particularly on the point he raises in this Clause, which I feel the Postmaster-General will probably welcome. It contains a provision that should have been made by the Government. We find ourselves at this fifty-ninth minute of the eleventh hour in a situation in which the Government should show signs of grace to the Opposition—not merely the opposition behind the right hon. Gentleman, and see that there is real validity in the new Clause.
It is a rather dramatic thought that in legislation as recent as 1954, no more than 15 years ago, we should have had a rate of interest which is almost unintelligible today. It is something that was no doubt worked out on clay tablets in ancient China, but which has no reference to anything that goes on in the world as we know it today. It shows the innate conservatism of the Post Office that it has been able to maintain the rate of 2½ per cent. for savings for so long.
In his speech my hon. Friend spoke of the annual withdrawals of money from the Post Office Savings Bank. The figures are shown in c. 1579 of Vol. 782 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 30th April, and I not want to go over them again. But the average since the present Government have been in office is more than £100 million a year. I have no doubt that the speed of this withdrawal has continued.
Therefore, there would seem to me to be a very real interest in contractual savings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised this, because in connection


with contractual savings he is offering rates of interest which my right hon. Friend for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has described as South American, possibly Brazilian—

Notice taken 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is gratifying to have an audience, if only for such a short interval.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who caused the Count to be called, immediately to absent himself from the Chamber before the Count is concluded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): There is no obligation on any hon. Member to remain in the Chamber.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that allows the rest of my audience to withdraw.
In his Budget the Chancellor, recognising the Treasury's paramount need for savings, has produced, for contractual savings, a scheme which, although we may wish to modify in detail, we welcome in principle. It applies positively South American rates of interest to attract fresh savings. How is it that the Post Office Savings Bank should have remained at this Chinese figure of 2½ per cent? I think that I have the answer.
The Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954 came into effect in a year when the Bank Rate varied between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. This was at a time when the party opposite had been hypnotised by the late Lord Dalton into believing that any rate of interest paid by any Government security was a present, with the result that stock called after the late Lord Dalton are worth barely 50 per cent. of their original price.
It is in keeping with the philosophy of Daltonism that the Post Office should offer 2½ per cent. True this was under a Conservative Administration, but it was seen to be a cheap way of raising money and was accepted. Times have changed.

In the debate on the Bill last week the Postmaster-General said:
On the next new Clause I shall want to make some observations on the current income of the Post Office Savings Bank which exceeds the management expenses and the cost of paying interest to depositors.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
… savers in the Post Office Savings Bank do not regard it as a means of maximising the return on their investment.…. They invest in the Post Office Savings Bank because it is a convenient way of saving, and it must be remembered that the cost of operating this small savings business is far greater than operating other types of investment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1587.]
I take the point. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he makes a profit on it. Presumably, it is not as expensive as all that. The interesting thing is that, on this principle, he ought to be making a charge to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank, instead of paying them this derisory rate of interest, because he says that he is supplying them with a convenience which they want. Therefore, they should pay him a charge for the bookkeeping.
In present conditions, with inflation of about 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. there is an erosion of savings of about 5 per cent. per annum. In paying interest at 2½ per cent. he is charging his depositors 2½ per cent. per annum for keeping their money. This fact is clearly widely known, as there is a movement out of the Post Office Savings Bank.
4.45 p.m.
There is, however, an interest in keeping money in the Bank because this expensive machinery is set up. Why waste it? The object of this new Clause is to suggest that money can be attracted if the correct rate is paid for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) made a very good point when he said that the assets held by the Post Office Savings Bank do not cover the nominal amount of deposits. I am not suggesting that any unlucky depositor goes in danger of forfeiting any more money than the Government's mismanagement of our finances is already costing him. It is the taxpayer who does this. The Post Office is running its own business, making money


out of the deposits and the cost is carried by the taxpayer who gives the guarantee.
No one will suffer, but this is a false addition to Post Office earnings. If it paid a realistic rate of interest its accounts would, by and large, balance. It should pay enough to depositors to enable it to pay the expenses involved in running accounts. The Postmaster-General has admitted that there is a profit on the service, but that profit is being made on a service which has run down. More and more people are removing their money from the Post Office Savings Bank because its rate of interest is unrealistic. No one could pretend that this is a satisfactory, sensible or even a particularly honest way of running a business, when depositors are being charged 2½ per cent. per annum by the Post Office for looking after their money.
The Postmaster-General has been given a good loophole by this new Clause, and I hope that he will take advantage of it and consider adjusting the rate of interest paid so that the service becomes self-supporting. It has been suggested that the Post Office should put its funds into equity shares. I would not agree with this, because it involves too many questions of principle, too many problems, and there are more than enough Government agencies already engaged in equity shares. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of purchasing equity shares in companies over which he is deemed to have control. We do not want to put the Post Office Savings Bank into equity shares and I am glad that that suggestion was rejected.
This is quite different. There is a national interest in attracting savings to the Post Office. The machinery is there, but it is running down. If the Postmaster-General looked at this seriously, he would find that the advantage of at least keeping the money he has, if not attracting new money, would depend on his paying a realistic rate of interest. He certainly is not doing that now.
In reply to the debate on 29th April, the Postmaster-General referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) as a Powellite. I do not think that the Devil has a monopoly of the best tunes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he said on that occasion. There are

many who share his views and who admire his speeches without necessarily being tagged by that label. It is true that the best speeches come from the mountain, but we do not judge everybody by the quality of their speeches. The mountain is absent. The mountain has given birth to a mouse.
Some of us have lived with the Bill for many months. I trust that the Postmaster-General, who has replied to an infinite number of debates, will realise that we are on to a very real point, one which we as a party will, I hope, vote for, since this is something which the party would want to do. Anyone who regards the Post Office as a national organisation wants to see its Savings Bank actively, efficiently and honestly operated. For the Postmaster-General to boast that it is making money at a cost to the Treasury of reducing its assets does not make sense.
If the Postmaster-General will tell us that he is willing to introduce a sensible rate of interest, much of the opposition we have to the current rate of 2½ per cent. will disappear. Unless he does that, we must put on record our abhorrence of the financial methods which take advantage of the ignorance of the poor. I do not think that the poor are so ignorant now; they are not ignorant at all; they have a pretty good idea of what is going on, and it will not be long before they will be able to prove it at the hustings. Until that moment I hope that the Postmaster-General will earn a little extra time by agreeing to the Clause.

Mr. Stonehouse: It will be within the recollection of the House that last Wednesday evening in replying to the debate on new Clause 11, moved by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I said that the Bill, the principal purpose of which was to transfer the operations of the Post Office from the Postmaster-General to a new Post Office Corporation, and the Post Office Savings Bank to a new National Savings Bank, was not the proper vehicle for ventilating the subject of new Clause 11, and this applies also to new Clause 12.
However, I have listened with interest and respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), who has a great


deal of experience in financial questions and who moved the new Clause in an agreeable way. In speaking of the rate of interest being almost unintelligible and "Chinese", terms which I honestly do not fully follow, he should apply these observations not only to the Post Office Savings Bank but to the joint stock banks. They do not pay interest to depositors on current account.
As the House is well aware, the Post Office Savings Bank is providing current account facilities, and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to pay the higher rate of interest suggested in the new Clause. In addition to providing current account facilities, the Post Office Savings Bank pays a rate of interest of 2½ per cent. for each complete calendar month that the account is held with the bank, and this is a fair rate of return, bearing in mind the facilities provided.
I said in the debate on new Clause 11 that I would give figures of the income and expenditure of the Savings Bank; they are as follows. The current income from the Savings Bank fund is about £72 million a year, of which £18 million is devoted to defraying expenses of management, and about £41 million to crediting interest to depositors. There is a surplus of a little over £10 million. If we were to follow the suggestion made in the new Clause, the administrative consequences would be very considerable. There would be extra cost and complication of accounting reflecting changes in Bank rate. In 1967 alone, there were six changes in Bank Rate; it varied between 5½ per cent. and 8 per cent.. If we were to take 6 per cent. as the basis of the requirement to pay interest at Bank Rate, it would produce a deficit of over £44 million on the Post Office Savings Bank fund.
I would draw attention to the other opportunities for depositors to invest their money, if they choose to go for a higher rate of interest rather than for the convenience of what is virtually a current account. There will be the new contractual savings scheme which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently. There are, in addition, other ways in which depositors can obtain a higher rate of interest.

Mr. Keith Speed: Does the deficit of £44 million assume the same

amount of money going in and being withdrawn from the Post Office Savings Bank, in other words, a failure of administration? If the rate of interest were much higher, people would tend to leave their money in for longer periods and not so frequently pay in £2 and withdraw £2.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that would be so, but it would change the character of the Savings Bank. The Savings Bank provides current account facilities, and depositors expect those facilities to continue. If depositors want a higher rate of interest there are many other ways of obtaining it. The contractual savings scheme is one way. The Savings Bank provides a higher interest account, which is currently 6½ per cent., subject to a person having £50 in the ordinary account and to accepting a restricted range of withdrawal facilities. A depositor with an average holding in an ordinary account and an average holding in an investment account will have a total holding of £475 and an effective return of about 5⅞ per cent.
So I am not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Walsall, South. If depositors want a higher rate of interest there are other means by which they can obtain it rather than on the simple Post Office Savings Bank facilities, which I believe should remain as they are.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the figure of 5⅞ per cent.? Is not he aware that for the standard rate taxpayer the interest on the ordinary account works out at an effective rate of 4½ per cent.?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, that is on the ordinary Savings Bank investment. The first £15 of Savings Bank interest on holdings up to £600 is Income Tax free. This gives a return of just over 4 per cent. where tax is payable at the standard rate. The House may like to know that less than 4 per cent. of the bank's depositors hold balances in excess of £600 so that a great many are receiving the value of these Income Tax allowances.
I was referring to the average holding in an investment account of £475 which gives this higher rate of return of 6½ per cent. and which produces an effective average return of 5⅞ per cent. Therefore, the basic point which the hon. Member


for Walsall, South was seeking to deploy, that ordinary people want to invest their money at a higher rate of interest than 2½ per cent., is fully met in existing circumstances.
I must advise the House to reject the new Clause if it is pressed to a Division.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am sure that the House will wish that the mission of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) to investigate the betting tax was widely and broadly successful. All those who listened to his speech with interest will very much regret that he was not here when we last discussed this Bill, because we were deprived of listening to speeches of equal cogency.
I do not know that the adjective "Chinese", when applied to this rate of interest, is the correct one. If "Chinese" equals "miserable" or "wretched", then undoubtedly it is. I found myself in broad agreement with my hon. Friend when he said that all we were asking for in this new Clause was to have a sensible rate of interest which married up to the times in which we live, which it needs no comment from me are indeed wretched.
I particularly wish to remind the House of the information which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 30th April:
The result has been, as it would not have been difficult to predict, that savers and depositors in the Post Office Saving Banks have seen fit to withdraw their money. In 1963–64 £11·4 million was withdrawn net. This is the difference between new money deposited and money taken out. In 1964–65 that amount went, up to £29·7 million. In 1965–66 is rose to £41·8 million, and in 1966–67 £153 million was taken out and in 1967–68 £105·6 million was withdrawn.
My hon. Friend went on appropriately to comment:
The poor British investor for whom these deposits are supposed to be of benefit has at least realised that he can do better with his money elsewhere and he is taking his money out. I do not blame him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1579.]
My hon. Friend deserves to be commended for the modesty and restraint of his language as well as for the value of

the information which he gave to the House.
It is a most appalling commendation commentary on the present climate, for which one does not blame the Postmaster-General. He stands out among his colleagues as a man who allows truth and commonsense to come to his lips occasionally—but not all the time, because he has some prejudice which has dogged his way through the Bill. Occasionally, he realises that there is a limit to the distance he can go along with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. I imagine that he must be even more suspicious of his right hon. Friend who now decorates the Home Office.
The other comment one would like to make on the miserable climate produced by the present Administration is the very one which the right hon. Gentleman adduced during his speech as an argument for rejecting the new Clause. He reminded the House—I should not have thought that Members of Parliament needed to be reminded of this kind of thing—that in 1967 there were no fewer than six changes of Bank Rate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said under his breath—I do not blame him for not being able to restrain himself—" And why?". It was a question which I was almost too polite to utter aloud. Perhaps the Minister would care to offer his own explanation for that state of affairs. These changes of Bank Rate do not represent the basis of what we would regard as a Conservative Administration, but apparently they are to be taken for granted with the present Administration.
Another point made by the Minister was when he spoke about joint stock banks. It is easy for a depositor to get from the joint stock banks 2 per cent. below Bank Rate on ordinary deposit accounts and so he would be able to obtain, say, 5½ per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South will correct me if I am wrong, but I imagine that it would be simple to get 5½ per cent. If he strains his imagination at all and makes further inquiries, I do not doubt that he could get much better facilities than that. Local authorities today have to pay at least 8 per cent. for their money.
To come down to the small saver, whom one would wish to encourage above all else, one still finds oneself offering this ludicrous 2½ per cent. I do not know with what one could compare this gloomy little pittance. I find I am totally without adjectives. But if the depositor, who I am quite certain has a good and lively sense of smell as to what is going on, realises that his savings are being eroded at a rate of 5 or 6 per cent. per annum and, at the same time, is getting only a measly pittance of 2½ per cent., he is apt not merely to say "I am going elsewhere", but to say "The whole purpose of the savings movement no longer commands my attention or respect. I am certainly going elsewhere."
Goodness knows, we have had over and again examples of Ministers who have had dizzy times at the controls. They have had a mad jump for the brake, have pressed it as hard as they can, only to find later that it had acted as though it were an accelerator. So often it seems that these controls have been used and abused and that Ministers are no longer in any kind of control of the economy. Here, as has already been said, we have in the Post Office savings movement a particularly aching void, with people withdrawing their support beyond what ought to be a valuable plank in the whole savings structure.
At a later stage in our debate we shall be discussing the appointment of the Director of Savings who, by the way, will be a Treasury official. It would be out of order for me to go on at length about the Director of Savings, but it would be interesting to know whether any of the depositors have been acquainted with this change of person to whom they are lending their money and whether at the moment they would be happy to lend it to a Treasury official. I wonder what would happen in ordinary private business if somebody suddenly said, "I am no longer to be responsible for repaying the money which you were good enough to lend me. Somebody else will."
The courts and all sorts of other people, quite properly, would wish to intervene about such a transaction. It seems to me that this one has elements at least of extreme high-handedness.

However, I will not dwell on that point for the moment.
The only reason why I mentioned the Director of Savings was to say what a nice makeweight it would be against the general gloom of the background of his appointment if he were, for a start, enabled to say, "I am the first person in charge of the Post Office Savings Bank who will be able to pay a realistic and more or less attractive rate of interest."
I feel some sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. If he were to put the point enshrined in the new Clause to the Treasury, obviously he would get a dusty and filthy answer.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I hesitate to intervene, but I do not think that the Treasury would turn down the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the opposite would be the case. At present, the Post Office is making profits for itself and piling up liabilities for the Treasury. That is what is unwelcome to the Treasury.

Mr. Peyton: I am interested to hear my right hon. Friend say that. However, I cannot help thinking that the Treasury would revolt against such a commonsense proposal. For some reason or other, if only because it had not thought of it for itself, it would be anxious to reject it. The right hon. Gentleman would get short shrift for his pains.
This is not a long point. The whole House is deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, for having made this suggestion. I notice that the Postmaster-General has left the Chamber, but I hope that we shall hear from him again. He can always ask for the leave of the House to speak again, and I hope that he will. In default of that, I am sure that we would be delighted to hear from the Assistant Postmaster-General, who, as I have said before, has always enjoyed the esteem of all hon. Members on this side of the House. We are rather sorry about his reticence on the Bill, though we have sympathy with him, because plainly he is a man of judgment who does not wish to have any more than a very discreet minimum of association with so ill-judged a Measure.
However, this new Clause affords the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if not


quite to break his duck, at least to hit a boundary over the top of the pavilion by saying something which is quite certainly not in his brief—[Interruption.] I see that the Postmaster-General has returned. I was referring to the Assistant Postmaster-General and saying that I hope that he will go at least half way to accepting the point contained in the new Clause and say that the rate of interest will be double.
I was saying, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Assistant Postmaster-General may have a chance to make history by doing what Assistant Postmasters-General and Parliamentary Secretaries do not have much chance to do, and that is to think for himself and act accordingly.

5 15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: Unfortunately, I was not present to hear the full speech of my hon. Friend—

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Why not?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Because I was busy with my constituents. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I reproach my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey).
I was not able to hear in full the wise speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), but I was fortunate enough to listen with my usual joy to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). He hit the Government benches so hard that the Postmaster-General had to leave the Chamber, no doubt to restore himself, as usual, with a glass of milk and a prune, before coming back, prepared to take more.
I cannot pretend that I can hit the Government benches as hard as my hon. Friend did in his speech. However, when the right hon. Gentleman got up just now to make that speech full of, I thought, hot air, I was reminded of the old American saying that figures can be made to lie, and any liar can figure. I do not mean to refer the last part of that to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he can speak only the truth and the whole truth from his heart. The trouble is that he has behind him the Civil

Service, whose members can justify anything. They can justify, for instance, that two and two make five.
Let us consider the plain simple facts that we are discussing. If I am wrong, I hope I shall be corrected. I understand that the Post Office is to put on the market £100 worth of stock which will pay 2½ per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, said that money in this country is depreciating at the rate of at least 5 per cent. per annum. Unless my mathematics are wrong, as they may be, that means that, at the end, the unfortunate investor will lose 2½ per cent. of his money each year.
I do not wish to refer to the dead in any disrespectful way, particularly as I am proud to say that the person concerned was a personal friend. I can remember the late Lord Dalton going on the wireless and, with a voice vibrant with emotion, trying to persuade the public—which he did successfully and, in my constituency, against my sound advice—to invest money in what have since become known as "Dirty Daltons".
I can remember that deep voice full of charm and patriotism saying, "Help your country in its hour of need. I advise you all to buy this stock. It is sure, sound stock, and you will get your money back." Get your money back, my left foot! Where does that 100 per cent. stock stand today?

An Hon. Member: Where does it stand?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I have not been on the market this morning, but I think it is down to something like 30. Investors have lost 70 per cent. of their capital, and they will never get it back.
As we know, there is a sucker born every minute. When the Post Office issues this stock it ought to say, "Invest your money in Post Office stock. Lose 2½ per cent. on your investment each year and remember that, in the autumn, sterling will probably be devalued to 2 dollars to the £." That is all over the City, as we know.
It is insulting that stock like this should be offered to the public. When people go to a Post Office, they find a charming lady behind the counter with these certificates. She stamps them in


every known position, and out they go across the counter. It is a shame, and almost fraudulent, that stock like this should be thrown on the market and for the poor suckers to be advised to invest their money in it.

Mr. James Dempsey: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but after listening to the rumblings that have come from the other side it is only fair that we should try to get a proper appreciation of what this is all about. I have never before listened to as much nonsense as I have heard today.
I asked a Question, when the Conservatives were in power, about the extent to which the pound had depreciated since 1919. The Answer was that it had depreciated to 4s. 11d. That was its new value taking it pound for pound in 1919. During 45 years from 1919 Conservative Governments had been in power for 36 years—four times longer than other Governments—yet the pound had eroded to that substantial effect. At that time, to talk of investing in stock after such depreciation was unthinkable. We have heard an argument that people would never think of investing at 2½, per cent.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Only the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport).

Mr. Dempsey: I have been waiting to hear someone tell the House how long the 2½ per cent. has been in operation. Listening to the argument from the other side, people would think that it has operated only since 1964. We know that is not true. The 2½ per cent. standard interest rate has been in vogue for a very long time. I find it incongruous to hear the Opposition, on the one hand, complaining about the increasing of interest rates and, on the other hand, saying that they want them increased. They have been arguing against increased interest rates for a long time. We are told that the Bank Rate has gone up and up. It is one thing to say that they have been able to keep pace and another to condemn the Government for what they have done.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Does my hon. Friend realise that last week the Opposition moved a Motion of censure against the Government on

the high Bank Rate and now they have a new Clause asking that the Post Office should put up its rate of interest to the same as the Bank Rate?

Mr. Dempsey: I am grateful for that intervention. It indicates that what we are listening to this afternoon is an exercise in inconsistency by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whenever it suits their political purpose they demand high Bank Rate and high interest rates. However, when it does not suit their political purpose they demand something otherwise. This is not the proper way to run a business or even to run the finances of the country. It is doing the investment elements of this country considerable damage to indulge in exercises in political inconsistency, such as we have been treated to today.
It is a well known fact—

An Hon. Member: What about the increase in contributions towards spectacles?

Mr. Dempsey: Mr. Deputy Speaker would no doubt rule me out of order if I followed up that point. We have heard an interjection about the increase in contributions towards spectacles, but we have been asked to increase interest rates. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of one increase but support another when it happens to suit the philosophy of the Conservative Party.
When we consider the Savings Bank account we know that these moneys are used for general economic activities in this country. If we increase the Savings Bank interest rate from 2½ per cent. to the present Bank Rate, we will increase the cost of providing certain services to the public. We will increase capital expenditure and public expenditure, and the Opposition have been decrying this for the past six months. Whenever we come along, conscious of the need to control public expenditure and to protect people's money by controlling interest rates, we find the Opposition introduce Clauses to bump them up. In other words, there is no consistency or logic in their argument.

Mr. Manuel: It is crazy.

Mr. Dempsey: It is crazy finances. Many people who argue that suffer from a degree of craziness in doing so.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Government cannot have it both ways. When we consider that farmers have to pay the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation about 10 per cent. for their money, which they have not got, how can the Government, on the other hand, offer 2½ per cent.? Surely, somewhere in between would be the right amount.

Mr. Dempsey: I think that the hon. Gentleman is skating on very thin ice when he quotes the farmers, because his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to axe the farmers' subsidies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not stray too far from new Clause 12.

Mr. Dempsey: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman started it.
Nevertheless, I am sure that it is the ambition of all Governments, not just this Government, and all financial interests, to control interest rates to the best of their ability. In some cases—especially when the Government are subject to international pressures—this is not always possible, because we are not always the master of our own house. But in this respect we are, and it reflects credit on all Governments that they have been able to maintain the Savings Bank interest rate and thus reduce costs in this country because our people know that their money is secure. One of the finest interest-bearing attractions a man can have is that his money is secure—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite look at HANSARD they will see how the pound has fallen year by year from 1951 to date. In reply to a Question which I put to the Chancellor, we were told that the pound fell during the Conservative Administration by nearly three times more than under this Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

Mr. Hay: Nonsense.

Mr. Dempsey: It is not nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the record in HANSARD is inaccurate, but I prefer to accept that record. It is as simple as that.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: What is the reference?

Mr. Dempsey: I will give the reference, because the Question was asked

recently. I asked for a comparison on how the pound had depreciated during the 13 years when the Conservatives were in power with its depreciation since the Labour Party took office in 1964. It is on record in HANSARD and it can be seen at any time. If the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has not time to look it up, I will find it and present it to him as one friend to another.
It is our duty to look at the tradition of savings in this country. We have a tradition for encouraging small savings especially. The interest rate has been fixed so that it does not involve extraordinary costs. If we increase the interest rate, I visualise an increase in administration and management costs which would not render it as attractive as it is now. It is most unfair for hon. Gentlemen opposite to argue at this stage for an increase in the interest rate on savings bank deposits when they could have done it during their 13 years in office.

Captain Orr: May I say to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), as one friend to another, that his plea for consistency might have carried more weight if he had been consistent. With all charity and good will, I have not listened to so much nonsense for a very long time.
The debate has produced some very surprising shocks, not the least of which was my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who has temporarily gone to higher places, saying that he had run out of adjectives. When my hon. Friend runs out of adjectives, something very strange has happened. If ever there was a master of the adjective, it is my hon. Friend. Without his adjectives he is like an egg without salt; full of good, solid, nourishing stuff, but lacking what we usually expect from him.
5.30 p.m.
The Postmaster-General argued that the Bill was not the proper vehicle for discussing the question of interest rates. That argument does not stand up. The Government have produced a massive, turgid, indigestible, badly constructed and drafted Bill transferring the present functions of the Post Office to a new Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman says that we can transfer the whole thing lock, stock and barrel, but saying at the same


time that we cannot examine it while we are doing so. That is an extraordinary argument. If ever there was a time when the operation not only of the Post Office in general but of all its various activities and agencies should be examined, it is now. Control over the operations of the Post Office is returning to the House for a brief period, and then we shall give it away in the Bill to a new public corporation. For heaven's sake, let us have a look at it while we do so.
I now come to the Clause, which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) moved so well. Until the debate on new Clause 11 and my hon. Friend's speech on this new Clause, I had not appreciated to what extent the taxpayer is in jeopardy over the Post Office Savings Bank account. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie pleaded that we should protect the public purse. That was one of his splendid phrases. But that is precisely what my hon. Friend is trying to do. Nobody has denied that depositors are rapidly withdrawing their money from the Post Office Savings Bank. If that is true, and if it be true that the account no longer has assets to meet the sum total of demand by all the depositors, the taxpayer is in considerable jeopardy. If it is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil says, that the new Director of Savings will be a Treasury official, it is very surprising that a Treasury official will take on such a job unless it be his intention to raise the rate of interest. If the rate of interest remains as it is now, the underwriting by the taxpayer of the Post Office Savings Bank account becomes very hazardous.
The Postmaster-General said that it was different from others in that it was a current account operation, and he pointed out that the joint stock banks do not pay interest on current accounts. But I do not believe that the average depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank regards it as a current account operation. It is money put aside for a rainy day, which is quite a different thing. People who are putting money away for a rainy day are much more likely to go to building societies now, because many building societies are making it easy to withdraw money. One can sometimes make a withdrawal from a building society account in a day

or two, almost by return of post. That is competition with the Post Office Savings Bank that makes the Postmaster-General's argument about its being a current account not very valid.

Sir Douglas Glover: Whatever one has in a current account in a bank one can draw out on demand. One cannot do that with an account in the Post Office Savings Bank. That is proof that it is not a current account.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conditions with regard to Post Office Savings Bank accounts are becoming very like those in building society accounts, and there is a big difference in the rate of interest. Unless something is done about the rate of interest paid by the Post Office Savings Bank, we shall see the account's erosion. There will be reduced deposits and money will flow out of the Savings Bank. Eventually the whole operation may have to be underwritten by a substantial in-flow of capital from the Treasury, and thus from the taxpayer. This is alarming.
I am not sure that tying the rate of interest to Bank Rate is the best answer, but it is better than the present situation. There may be something in the argument of the Postmaster-General that a continually changing rate, if we are to have a continually changing Bank Rate, might be administratively difficult, but before he invites us to reject the Clause, let him tell us whether he is seriously thinking about the present rate of interest.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Would it be more difficult for the Post Office to vary the rate of interest it pays than it is for the joint stock banks, which vary their interest on deposit account with Bank Rate?

Captain Orr: I do not see that it should be much more difficult, but I suppose that somebody in the Post Office has made a calculation about the matter and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what it is. It would be very interesting to know the calculations upon which he reckons that a floating rate of interest in the Post Office Savings Bank would be more administratively expensive. I cannot really answer my hon. Friend without the kind of information with which the Postmaster-General should be able to arm me. Before I finally decide how I


shall vote on the new Clause, I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. Hay: It is also desirable that we should have a Treasury Minister here. The Postmaster-General is a Departmental Minister. Treasury policy is very much involved in the matter. How free are the right hon. Gentleman's hands?

Captain Orr: That is a point. My hon. Friend is quite right, especially now that the Postmaster-General has lost the help and advice of the Assistant Postmaster-General. Even the Whips have deserted him. That might be of some use, because the Treasury is deeply involved.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I want to put the contrary point to that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). There are few recorded instances where the presence of a Treasury Minister has cleared up any doubt.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is consistent in his support of his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who takes precisely the same view. I am not quite so distrustful of the Treasury. Perhaps I should be. I should like to have a Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench now to tell us whether or not the Treasury itself is alarmed about the state of Post Office savings. It would also be useful—it may be a little premature at this stage—to be told what advice the Treasury will give, in respect of Post Office savings, to its own colleague who will become the new Director of the Post Office Savings Account. I should like to know whether it is now satisfied with the rate of interest.
Can the Postmaster-General tell us whether anybody—the Government, the Treasury, himself or anybody else—is satisfied with the present situation? Is there any alarm at the rate at which money is being withdrawn from the Post Office Savings Account? Is the Postmaster-General really satisfied with his argument that it is a current account?

Mr. Speed: We have been discussing the Treasury; the Postmaster-General may be interested to know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me, on 25th February, in a Written Answer, that if a person invested £1 on 1st January, 1968 in the Post Office Savings

Bank, on 31st December, 1968, taking into account accrued interest, that £1 would be worth only 19s. 5d. in terms of purchasing power.

Captain Orr: That is an extremely interesting and important revelation. I ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of that fact and, if so, whether he will comment upon it.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the points that he is pursuing. I would refer him to the Budget speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then spelt out the arrangements for the contractual savings scheme, which I believe to be the answer to some of the questions now being raised. My right hon. Friend recognises that there must be other methods for savers to obtain a higher rate of interest, and he is introducing such a scheme. I believe that that is the full answer to the points being raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

5.45 p.m.

Captain Orr: I do not think it is a full answer. I noted that in his speech the Postmaster-General made the point that the contractual savings scheme will provide an alternative for those who are looking for higher rates of interest—which is laudable and proper. But that does not answer my question: what is to become of the Post Office Savings Fund? Let us suppose that everybody with a Post Office Savings account transfers to the contractual savings scheme, deserting the Post Office Savings Account. What happens to it? It goes bust. But it does not go bust in the ordinary sense. The depositors do not lose a proportion of their money. At the end of the day the taxpayer has to foot the bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will address himself to that point. Is it not valid? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the matter in some detail.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was seeking to interrupt me—

Mr. Bence: No. I am seeking to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously suggesting that the new contractual savings scheme will bring


about the demise of the Post Office Savings Bank—the traditional method of saving? Does he seriously put that forward as a valid argument?

Captain Orr: Yes. If the present trend continues and a contractual savings scheme is set up which would institute another vehicle for savers there will be a strain upon the Post Office Savings Bank Account. Is that not so? I should have thought it was as plain as a pikestaff.

Mr. Dempsey: Not necessarily.

Captain Orr: Why not?

Mr. Dempsey: For the simple reason that many people who do not deposit in the Post Office at the moment may be attracted to another Post Office savings system because under the contractual savings scheme they will receive a better rate of interest.

Captain Orr: If the hon. Member thinks that with an interest rate of 2½ per cent.—with interest rates running at the rates they are running at now and with inflation at 5 per cent. per annum or more—there will be a rush of people to invest in the Post Office, I do not know what to say to him. He is a personal friend of mine, but friendship does not always mean admiration for a man's powers of ratiocination. I do not think that he can be serious in suggesting that there will be a rush of people to invest in the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Dempsey: No—in the contractual scheme.

Captain Orr: I thought that the hon. Member was saying that there would be a rush to join the present Post Office savings scheme, despite the contractual scheme. Perhaps I misunderstood him.

Mr. Dempsey: Allow me to clear up the misunderstanding. I said that it was conceivable that those people outside the Post Office who have money to invest would be attracted to the new contractual savings scheme because it would offer a higher rate of interest.

Captain Orr: I still have great respect for the hon. Member, but I cannot possibly concede that to him. It cannot be true. What might happen is that people who have money in the Post

Office at 2½ per cent. will be tempted to shift their money to the new contractual savings scheme and that further withdrawals will continue from the Post Office Savings Bank unless something is done about the rates of interest. The Post Office Savings Bank is ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer, and it is the taxpayer who will lose.
I have an open mind about the Clause, which my hon. Friend has put forward with great cogency and persuasion. I shall probably be in the Lobby with him when it comes to the vote, but I shall wait to hear the Postmaster-General before I make up my mind.

Mr. Bence: The new Clause is a piece of absolute nonsense. I am surprised that it is apparently a new idea for the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that the taxpayer is ultimately responsible. I have always thought that a State institution with a guaranteed rate of interest must be the ultimate responsibility of the taxpayers. The Post Office Savings Bank has been a habit with the artisan class for a hundred years. When I consider the money that my wife and I put into it in 1924 and 1925, compared with the money which my hon. Friends now get from their investment then in Imperial Tobacco shares, I realise that I was a fool to put money into the Post Office Savings Bank under Sir Winston Churchill, after having listened to the Tory and Liberal propagandists. I got too little interest. But without the National Health Service, I had to put my money where it was easily available to pay doctors' bills. I lid not put it in a marketable share like Bald-wins, Ltd., which collapsed from 23s. to 1s. 3d. in 1924, I think.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member may have missed the point, which springs mainly from our anxiety about the rate of net withdrawals from the Post Office. As I said, whereas it was running at about £11·4 million in 1963–64, it has now risen to over £100 million.

Mr. Bence: Savings in the Post Office were an institution for the artisan class from which I spring. Since we have had full employment and better information, a young man of 23 or 24 today looks to the unit trusts and building societies. There were no unit trusts in my day and


I was afraid to put my nose inside a building society, because I had not enough money. But that is changing and young men can now put by £1 were we could only put by ls.
I enjoyed, as a piece of nonsense, the intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) about the joint stock banks. There one gets 6 per cent. on the trustee side, but they charge 9¼ per cent. for overdrafts—something which my right hon. Friend cannot do. If one has money on the trustee side and a current account and no overdraft and keeps £100 in hand, one still has to pay bank charges.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member clearly has not briefed himself. How can the banks possibly compete with the building societies unless they pay a comparable rate of interest? Money does not come down from heaven, as his right hon. colleagues think. It has to earn its way in life.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that money comes from heaven, because he supports a Clause which suggests that the Post Office should pay a rate of interest equal to what it has to pay to borrow. That is as if the joint stock banks paid me Bank Rate and charged only 1 per cent. more on overdrafts. There must be a gap between what is charged on money deposited and what is charged on money loaned. Otherwise, the banks could not earn a living, unless they create money out of nothing. They probably do, but the Post Office cannot. It has to get it from the customers. To suggest that the Post Office should pay the same rate of interest as an institution which creates its own money is nonsense. I am glad that none of the Opposition Front Bench has signed this Clause.
The taxpayers must underwrite the 2½ per cent., the hon. Gentleman complained, but by supporting the new Clause he is in favour of their underwriting a rate of 9¼ per cent—

Mr. Ridley: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Postmaster-General's astonishing revelation that, of the £71 million interest which the Savings Bank receives from its investments, it spends £18 million on administration? Is that not a somewhat Parkinsonian figure?

Mr. Bence: I accept that there is a changing pattern of savings and that Post Office savings may not be the best form, nationally. That is worth a debate in itself. Many working men subscribe through the banks to Scotbits and other unit trusts.

Mr. Dempsey: Very interesting points are being made about the cost of administering the Post Office Savings Bank—£18 million out of about £72 million, or 25 per cent. Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that certain public undertakings are costing 60 to 63 per cent. to administer, not 25 per cent.?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing public undertakings. Perhaps the hon. Member will stick to new Clause 12.

Mr. Bence: I cannot delve into that matter, then, thank God.
It is wrong for the Opposition to put down a new Clause to give the impression that this is a practical proposition. Hon. Members know that it is impractical to ask an institution like the Post Office to pay that sort of rate to depositors on money which can be withdrawn in a month, without the power to create credit or lend money. Had they put down a new Clause raising the rate to 3 or 3½ per cent., it would have been more debatable, but this one is wrong. They know as well as I that no Government in history could have run the Post Office by paying a rate of interest equal even to that of the commercial banks, and to make it equal to the Bank Rate is a piece of humbug.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Gentleman has more or less accused me of mental dishonesty. My argument—I do not know if he was even in his place to hear it—was that the Post Office should pay a realistic rate of interest which would attract deposits, instead of paying a low rate of interest, as at present, which discourages deposits and encourages withdrawals.

Mr. Bence: That may be so, but the new Clause does not say that. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends had made that clear in the new Clause they might have had some support from my hon. Friends.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: The Government have not answered the points of substance raised by the new Clause. There is no justification, 50 years after its inception, for continuing with a savings media which continues to decline in value and which pays an interest rate of perhaps one-third the going rate.
The Postmaster-General has made two short speeches on this subject. In the first he tried to defend himself by saying that the new Clause was virtually out of order. That cannot be so, it having been selected. In any event, that is no argument against the proposal. He then thought that I was a Powellite. I was not sure whether he meant that as an insult or a compliment. In either case, it is no argument against the new Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman then made the sinister implication that the loss of capital value of the Fund, which was to be invested in long-term gilts, could be made up from the profit on income because the rate of interest which the Post Office was earning was greater than that which it was paying. The right hon. Gentleman said:
On the next new Clause I shall want to make some observations on the current income of the Post Office Savings Bank, which exceeds the management expenses and the cost of paying interest to depositors. There is a surplus on that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1969; Vol. 782; c. 1587.]
That is no argument either, because the surplus is, we discover, only about £10 million a year, which will not go anywhere towards covering the enormous loss in capital value which faces the Fund, should it be fully drawn out.
I dismiss the right hon. Gentleman's fourth argument, which was that I was advocating by some means a form of nationalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) dealt with that effectively. The Minister has not adduced arguments of substance to rebut the general proposition—leaving aside the drafting points which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) tried to raise—that the Post Office is offering a rotten investment and that people should not be encouraged to invest in it.
If £1,000 had been invested in the Post Office Savings Bank in 1919 and neither it nor the interest had been touched, the

depositor would now have a nest egg, including the tax rebate to which he might be entitled, of about £2,500. If £1,000 had been invested in a stock which had kept its real value, due to growth, against the falling value of the currency, and if it gained interest at 5 per cent. then, together with the tax that would have to be paid, it would be worth about £7,000. This is the magnitude of the loss about which we are speaking.
It must be obvious that a short-term stock like this will carry a smaller rate of interest than an investment left for a specific period of years or one which carries certain difficulties of negotiation. It is obvious, therefore, that this type of investment should be expressed in terms of 1 per cent. or so under the long-term rate. The Postmaster-General, however, has failed to realise that since the original Post Office Savings Bank rate of 2½ per cent. was fixed, there has been a massive increase in Bank Rate and interest rates generally and that this 2½ per cent. rate has been left way behind. While the Post Office rate should be 1 per cent. or so below the rate for borrowing, it has stayed at 2½ per cent. and has never moved.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the cost of administration was so high that the Post Office could not pay more than 2½ per cent. The cost of administration is not the cost of paying out the interest rate. The cost of administration plus the cost of borrowing should be the sum which leads to the interest rate. The cost of borrowing has gone up and, therefore, the cost of administration has presumably not changed. There must, therefore, be more money available to pay out to keep this interest rate competitive with interest rates in other stocks.
Why does it cost £18 million a year to administer this Fund? Not only is the Fund administered in such a way that its capital value has declined, but it is paying only 2½ per cent. interest, which is not variable in relation to nation-wide interest rate variation. We are also told that about one quarter of the total income of the Fund is used for administrative purposes.
I must leave the Postmaster-General with a suspicion in his mind that something is rotten in the State of Denmark if this is really the situation of the Post


Office Savings Bank. That being so, he should not give the impression that all is well, with him trying to lull the savers into continuing to invest their money in the Post Office. It is clear that this is a bad bargain and an area of Government administration which has been left undisturbed for too long.
This state of affairs needs examining. We have stumbled on this aspect by a sidewind and it is the duty of the Government to investigate the matter. One on the functions of Parliament is to probe issues such as this. We have stumbled on an anthill which contains more ants than we expected to find. I trust that there will be a flicker of interest on the part of the Government in view of the apparent inconsistencies, wrong administration and mistakes which have been shown to exist.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise to the House—many of my hon. Friends have sat patiently through the discussion waiting to speak—for rising at this stage, but I understand that the Government intend shortly to curtail the debate.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench because he anticipates that the Government intend to curtail the debate. Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that several of my hon. Friends and I have been hoping to catch your eye because we have important points to make? Should we be gagged in this fashion? May we have your protection to ensure that we are able to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will consider the matter if and when the time comes.

Mr. Mills: I regret having to rise at this time—

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not out of order for an hon. Member, even when speaking from the Front Bench, to assume that the Chair can expect the debate to be curtailed at some future time? The hon. Gentleman clearly said that the Government had decided to curtail the debate. Is it not the Chair which decides whether

or not a debate should be curtailed, rather than the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is out of order to suggest when the chair will accept the Closure.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am sorry to have to follow up this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is rather serious. If there has been a private deal between the two Front Benches, may we be informed? It is quite wrong that at this stage—it is now after 6 o'clock—we should have indications that the debate is to be gagged or the Closure moved. We have before us an important matter respecting interest rates to our constituents, and I resent the suggestion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Discussions through the usual channels are not matters for the Chair.

Mr. Alison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to raise a matter which is directly within your competence. You will have observed that a large number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides have been sitting here since the end of Question Time, seeking to take part in the debate. It would be quite intolerable were the Whip to seek to put a shot across your bows. I am not seeking to prejudice your views in any way in this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As with similar points of order, the Chair will make its decision when occasion arises.

Mr. Ridley: The House is now in some difficulty, because it has been intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that he has a suspicion that he may be the last speaker in this debate. It would make it very much easier for those of my hon. Friends who have not yet been called if you were able to say if my hon. Friend is wrong in his suspicion and that there is no intention of bringing the debate to an end or of your accepting any such Motion because of the irregularity of its being suggested in advance that there is a predetermined moment at which the debate will be closed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has already given a Ruling that it does not give hypothetical answers.

Captain Orr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have obviously been placed in a very great difficulty. We understand that normally you cannot rule on a hypothetical point, but the fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has now disclosed that he has had some message from Government quarters that the debate is to be curtailed. I have no interest in the matter because I have already been able to address the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am seized of the point of order raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; namely, a suggested curtailment of the debate. That matter does not arise at this stage at all. There is no Motion before the House, That the Question be now put. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the Chair's Ruling. I have made it abundantly clear that it is not possible for the Chair to rule on any hypothetical situation.

Captain Orr: I fully accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already accepted the fact that you cannot possibly rule on a hypothesis. I am asking, through you, whether, in order to protect you from this sort of embarrassing position, someone on the Government Front Bench can say that there is no intention whatever of bringing the debate to an end.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Mills: Mr. Mills rose—

Sir A. V. Harvey: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will at least be frank with his colleagues, and say how he got the information. It is quite wrong—hon. Members have been sitting here since 3.30—to have the debate interrupted. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give way so that the Postmaster-General may clear up this matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for discussion on new Clause 12.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Mills: I ought to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend, and this is why I spoke as I did at the beginning, that I intervened not with any wish to curtail the debate but to explain that I

did so because of the Government's intention to closure the debate. I also make it quite clear that there has been no arrangement at all with this side of the House, and I hope that my hon. Friends will express their disapproval in the Division Lobby if and when the Government do seek to move the Closure. I felt that I had a duty to explain my hon. Friends—and to apologise to them—why I was intervening. The Postmaster-General may wish to intervene in order to make it quite clear that he has no intention of curtailing the debate.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must obey the Ruling of the Chair. I have already ruled that this matter would be out of order on new Clause 12.

Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has caused us to look once again at whether the 2½ per cent. rate of interest offered to depositors in the ordinary department of the Post Office Savings Bank is reasonable and fair having regard to interest rates currently available on the market and in comparable investments. He made a very strong case. I emphasise that we on this side are by no means wedded to the proposal of Bank Rate as being appropriate, but we feel sufficiently strongly that an increase is overdue to wish to divide the House—

Mr. Peyton: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The new Clause is moved in the exceptional circumstances of very massive withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank against a background, of which the Postmaster-General was good enough to remind the House, of 16 changes in one year since devaluation. The Government cannot run the economy. This is why this sort of unusual proposal is put forward.

Mr. Mills: The figures quoted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) showed overwhelmingly that the small investor is taking notice of the fact that these rates are entirely out of line with the market, and is taking evading action with his money. A rate of 2½ per cent. is quite unrealistic. The Postmaster-General said that it was equivalent to about 4 per cent. to the standard rate


taxpayer. He then attempted to give a composite rate of 5⅞ per cent. which, I understand, was the average rate as between the Ordinary Department and the Special Department of the Post Office Savings Bank. I urge the House to disregard that figure. It is quite misleading, and irrelevant to our discussion. We are discussing not the overall rate for the two departments, but the single rate for the Ordinary Department. To introduce other figures is to mislead the House.
My hon. Friends have referred to the drift of depositors' moneys out of the Post Office Savings Bank. The Postmaster-General attempted to argue that the Ordinary Department was comparable with the ordinary current accounts in the banks, but the two services are in no way comparable. The right hon. Gentleman put most emphasis on the convenience afforded to savers by the Ordinary Department, and argued that 2½ per cent. was a form of bonus on top of that convenience. To establish that argument, the right hon. Gentleman must have regard to rates of interest available in other forms of security where there is equal convenience.
I remind him that the interest paid by the banks on deposits is between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. The rate for money lodged with local authorities and withdrawable at seven days' notice or less is over 8 per cent. The Post Office Savings Bank—admittedly, it is the special department, but there is very little different in the facilities it gives—offers about 6½ per cent. Building societies, where withdrawal can take place very rapidly, give an equivalent of 8½ per cent. or 9 per cent. grossed up, and, although it is not entirely the same, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has 9½ per cent. debentures.
I cite those examples to put to the Postmaster-General as strongly as I can the point that interest rates in the ordinary department of the Post Office are very substantially out of line with the rest of the market, and that unless he heeds this warning he will find more and more money flowing out of this means of saving.
Why is the Postmaster-General appearing so mean and niggardly over this 2½ per cent.? A slightly ungallant answer to that question would be that it is not

his fault—that the Chancellor will not allow him to do otherwise. That probably is true.
I think there is another reason. I referred in an earlier debate to the Post Office Savings Bank Fund and to the £200 million, probably more now, loss in capital value of moneys invested in that fund. The right hon. Gentleman today, although he did not spell it out because that would be letting the cat out of the bag, practically admitted that. The overall yield of moneys invested not in the Post Office but by the Post Office is about 4½ per cent. It would be virtually impossible to invest funds in such a way in gilt-edged securities as to produce an overall yield of about 4½ per cent. That is a severe indictment of the management of that fund.
Successive Governments have used the Post Office Savings Bank as a kind of dustbin for the fag-end of Government securities. If they had a sum left with the underwriters, they would say to the Post Office, "Take a couple of millions off our hands." We ended with a position in which the Post Office, particularly in days of low interest rates—which are now a long time ago—took far too much stock with long-dated redemption and too much stock with no redemption dates at all. The penalty now is that investors have to pay. The Government are not able to pay the money to the ordinary depositor in this account.
It is very hard that the small saver suffers most from this mishandling. Financially unsophisticated people who put their trust in the Government and the Post Office are penalised in this way. The small investor, however, is now waking up to the truth. He is becoming much more sophisticated, particularly with the aid of daily and Sunday newspapers. He is waking up to the truth that he is getting a raw deal with 2½ per cent. and is therefore moving his money elsewhere. Unless the Government recognise this and adjust the interest to a realistic level, this process will continue. That is why, with the reservations I made at the beginning of my speech, I shall encourage my hon. and right hon. Friends to take this matter to the Division Lobby.

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put.

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 168.

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[6.24 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland


Anderson, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold


Ashley, Jack
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Newens, Stan


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
O'Malley, Brian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamling, William
Oram, Albert E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Orme, Stanley


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henig, Stanley
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Paget, R. T.


Binns, John
Hobden, Dennis
Park, Trevor


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Hoy, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boston, Terence
Huckfieid, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)




Buchan, Norman
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roebuck, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Paul


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Crawshaw, Richard
Kelley, Richard
Rowlands, E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Ryan, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John (Reading)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Dickens, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Symonds, J. B.


Dobson, Ray
McCann, John
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
MacDermot, Niall
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dunn, James A.
Macdonald, A. H.
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Tuck, Raphael



Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Urwin, T. W.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ellis, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wallace, George


English, Michael
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ensor, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Whitaker, Ben


Fernyhough, E.
Marks, Kenneth
White, Mrs. Eirene


Finch, Harold
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Garrett, W. E.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woof, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Molloy, William



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gurden, Harold
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Hay, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Pink, R. Bonner


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Hunt, John
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minister)


Clark, Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
MacArthur, Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
McMaster, Stanley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
McNaire-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Doughty, Charles
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Grant, Anthony
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 227.

Division No. 189.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David


Astor, John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Crowder, F. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Currie, G. B. H.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
DalKeith, Earl of


Balniel, Lord
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Batsford, Brian
Bullus, Sir Eric
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Doughty, Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Drayson, G. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Sir John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R,
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Farr, John


Body, Richard
Cordle, John
Fisher, Nigel


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)




Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
Ridsdale, Julian


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grant, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Royle, Anthony


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maude, Angus
Scott, Nicholas


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sharples, Richard


Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Silvester, Frederick


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stainton, Keith


Hay, John
Monro, Hector
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Temple, John M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Howell David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Waddington, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walters, Dennis


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Ward, Dame Irene


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Weatherill, Bernard


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Percival, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Peyton, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lambton, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Prior, J. M. L.



Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Gilbert
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David





NOES


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Delargy, Hugh
Hamling, William


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dell, Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dewar, Donald
Haseldine, Norman


Barnes, Michael
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hattersley, Roy


Barnett, Joel
Dickens, James
Hazell, Bert


Beaney, Alan
Dobson, Ray
Henig, Stanley


Bence, Cyril
Driberg, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Hobden, Dennis


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Horner, John


Binns, John
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howie, W.


Blackburn, F.
Ellis, John
Hoy, James


Booth, Albert
English, Michael
Huckfield, Leslie


Boston, Terence
Ennals, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boyden, James
Ensor, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hunter, Adam


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Finch, Harold
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Forrester, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Fowler, Gerry
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E.
Judd, Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Kelley, Richard


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Kenyon, Clifford


Crawshaw, Richard
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Leadbitter, Ted


Daviea, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)







Lee, John (Reading)
Newens, Stan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Silverman, Julius


Lomas, Kenneth
Oram, Albert E.
Slater, Joseph


Loughlin, Charles
Orbach, Maurice
Sprigge, Leslie


Luard, Evan
Orme, Stanley
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Oswald, Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Symonds, J. B.


McCann, John
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Taverne, Dick


MacDermot, Niall
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Macdonald, A. H.
Paget, R. T.
Tinn, James


McGuire, Michael
Palmer, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Park, Trevor
Tuck, Raphael


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Urwin, T. W.


Mackie, John
Pavitt, Laurence
Varley, Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, peter (Preston, S.)
Pentland, Norman
Wallace, George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Manuel, Archie
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitaker, Ben


Marquand, David
Probert, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rees, Merlyn
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mayhew, Christopher
Richard, Ivor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mendelson, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Millan, Bruce
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Millar, Dr. M. S.
Roebuck, Roy
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rose, Paul
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Molloy, William
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Ryan, John



Moyle, Roland
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murray, Albert
Sheldon, (Robert
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Neal, Harold
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF OFFICE OF MASTER OF THE POST OFFICE

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, at end insert:
(3) Any order made under this section shall be subject to confirmation by affirmative resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament.
I did not have the privilege and pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee, in which similar Amendments gave rise to lengthy debate. Although I was thereby denied the opportunity of contributing on this question, I hope now to put the case for this central Amendment relatively briefly. However, I cannot refrain from observing, in intervening at this stage—this is the first intervention of substance that I have made on Report—that it was not for want of trying earlier that I failed to take part. The difficulty—nothing to do with you, Mr. Speaker—has been that practically every debate has been cut short by the Closure as soon as I have risen to my feet. This seems an absurd way to go about debating such a crucial matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment. He can be assured, if assurance be necessary, that no Closure was ever levelled at any individual hon. Member.

Mr. Howell: I am greatly reassured, Mr. Speaker, to know that I have, as we all have, your protection in this matter.
The purpose of the Amendment is related to the purpose which my hon. Friends and I have argued all along in our opposition to the Bill; namely, to bring some measure of Parliamentary control over what is here proposed, the central question being the abolition of the office of Master of the Post Office. At first glance, it may seem that this is a symbolic and superficial change and that in seeking to make it subject to confirmation by affirmative Resolution of both Houses we are asking for only a small change. However, behind the symbolism and the proposal to abolish this ancient office there are fundamental considerations which recur again and again in our opposition to the Bill.
The first and most obvious point lying behind our desire for confirmation by affirmative Resolution is that the Amendment once again confronts all of us who


oppose the Bill with the uncomfortable choice between fire and frying pan, a choice which so many of our Amendments and new Clauses have already raised. Behind our desire to exercise greater control over the decision to abolish, or not to abolish, the office of Master of the Posts lies the hope that in exercising such control we shall be able to make it decisive to the point of stopping the abolition. Behind that desire, again, lies the hope which many of us have expressed, that we can restrain the Postmaster-General from his headlong determination to bundle all the activities of the Post Office and telecommunications into the curious new creature to which he is so much wedded, which will dominate those two industries in the 1970s.
We have, therefore, the dilemma, which I admit to be awkward, between resisting the Postmaster-General's intentions, symbolised in his wish to abolish the office of Master of the Posts, and urging that things stay in their present far from satisfactory state. As I say, this choice between fire and frying pan is one which has often confronted us and confronts us once again on this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The only dilemma which the hon. Gentleman may debate at the moment is whether to support this Amendment or not.

Mr. Howell: That is a dilemma to which I have given some thought, Mr. Speaker. In my own mind I have resolved it, but I am trying to set it out in terms so that I may the better urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to face it—and hon. Members opposite, too, few though there are here at this moment. I want to set out for their guidance the considerations which led my hon. Friends and me to put the Amendment down, showing how, symbolic and even superficial though the Amendment may appear, fundamental considerations about the organisation of the Post Office and telecommunications are here involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot argue the whole Bill on this Amendment, which seeks to control anything taking place under the Clause by making affirmative Resolutions of both Houses necessary.

Mr. Howell: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course. But I find it very hard not to set out those considerations in putting some of the arguments as to why we wish to have affirmative Resolutions rather than the normal negative Resolution, which would probably go through unless someone was quick to spot it and pray against it. We regard this as a matter of more than symbolism, and more than merely abolishing on ancient post.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: At present there is not even a need for a negative Resolution. The Clause merely requires an Order in Council, which would not even need to go through on the nod.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his intervention reinforces the contrast between what we should like to occur and what will happen should the Amendment not be made. The difference is one that we have seen exemplified and emphasised in other Amendments, it is the difference between the House having a say and not having a say in a change which, although apparently only abolishing a post, sets the whole pattern for the organisation of posts and telecommunications over the next 10 years.
I accept that this leads on to issues which are well outside the range of the Amendment and into questions we have raised again and again of the basic desire to thrust those two very different industries together. But it is from the jamming together in the next 10 to 20 years of two very different industries, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) has called an elephant and a greyhound, that the Amendment and other Amendments spring. There are very severe worries about the post being abolished, and from them flows our desire that there should be affirmative Resolutions by both Houses before the office of Master of the Post Office ceases to exist.
In asking that some degree of additional accountability or control be exerted on the matter, we are reflecting a fairly consistent theme that my hon. Friends and I have urged in the Bill as a whole, that matters of such import,


which will finalise the pattern of development of two very different industries for many years ahead, should be exposed to as much Parliamentary comment and debate as possible. We should have the maximum opportunity to try to bring home to the Postmaster-General the undesirability of abolishing the post and, behind that, the undesirability of jamming together in a Post Office Corporation two very different industries.
We wish to preserve the office not only for its ancient qualities and traditional links but because it means that we can, at least for the time being, preserve the posts in a separate Government Department before beginning to plan a more sensible and rational organisation of the industry.
Those are the thoughts behind what might seem a rather procedural Amendment, which we hope will be accepted.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) for the way in which he moved the Amendment, and I appreciate the wish behind it. The hon. Gentleman wants more time to discuss some of the principles behind the Bill, but we have already had many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and on Second Reading the principle of the Bill was accepted without a Division. I recognise the sentimentality behind the hon. Gentleman's remark about the office of Postmaster-General. As the 101st holder of the position, I naturally regret that it must be abolished on vesting day. But we have found no alternative.
I detected a certain inconsistency in what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that it was undesirable to abolish this post, but also questioned whether the two great industries concerned should be joined together. However, they have been joined together in this post, and if it were to continue and we did not have the Bill, they would continue to be run together. It is our intention that they should continue to be run under the one Post Office Corporation.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure inadvertently, is misconstruing my argument, which was limited by the rules of order. I think I said enough to indicate that we are not against a change in the pattern of control of the industry but simply think that the

Postmaster-General is haring off in the wrong direction. In wanting to retain the post, we wish to give ourselves a breathing space to have a more rational pattern of reorganisation introduced by a less hard-pressed Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into the merits, first, of the Bill, and, second, of the Clause. We are, however, debating whether the Clause, which now exists in the Bill, shall be subject to the Amendment.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not wish to be drawn on the wider subjects, as you have indicated that that would be out of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Amendment provides for Parliamentary debate on an affirmative Resolution before the Bill could be made effective. It is not usual for Orders in Council, which do no more than fix a vesting day, to be made the subject of a debate in the House.
Before he presses the Amendment to a Division, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the question of timing very seriously. It is hoped to have vesting day on 1st October this year. Depending on the date of Royal Assent, it might not be possible to have a debate on such an affirmative Resolution as the Amendment proposes before the Summer Recess. If that were not possible, it would be impossible to hold to the vesting day date of 1st October.
Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment on two grounds. First, it is a most unusual proposal to have a debate on an Order in Council fixing a vesting day. Second, the time table for the vesting day would be seriously embarrassed if we accepted that procedure.
I believe that there has been sufficient debate in the House about the principles behind the Bill, and that further Parliamentary debate on an affirmative Resolution would not be required. Therefore, my advice to the House is to reject the Amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton: I have to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) on the way in which he moved this apparently rather formal Amendment. It is one which deserves our attention because we are concerned here with the symbolic act of abolishing


the office of Master of the Post Office. One of the complaints which has accompanied the Bill is that it is weakening Parliamentary control over the business of the Post Office, and this Clause is a further step.
We are asking here for a last opportunity, so that the Minister must come to us to get Parliament's approval. It would be Parliament's last opportunity to wave a friendly farewell to the Post Office. The alternative to a discussion immediately prior to the abolition of the office would be to wait for a debate on a report on Post Office affairs in the future. The experience of hon. Members who have taken an interest in such reports on nationalised industries is dismal. This is an attempt to grasp for Parliament a last opportunity to review what has happened between the passage of the Bill and the time that the Minister says it shall come into effect.
The Minister says that it is an odd form of procedure to require an affirmative Resolution upon an order in Council. I agree, and, if he likes to change the procedure and the drafting of the Clause, I shall be quite happy with that. He can bring the Bill into effect in any way he cares. What matters to me is not so much the Order in Council as the opportunity to debate the principle of bringing the Bill into operation at the earliest moment before it is a fact.
The Government have an overwhelming majority and would be able to carry such a resolution. However, with the passage of time and in the very strange political climate of today, things could be different. As an opponent of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, I am entitled to erect every legal obstacle that I can to prevent it from coming into operation. This is simply a delaying mechanism. I regard it not as a wrecking mechanism but as something which will give the House of Commons a further opportunity for second thoughts about a hotch-potch of a proposal which does not command my support. The right hon. Gentleman said that the two industries are now together, and I concede that. The House has some chance to criticise the Minister responsible, but we are losing that. In addition, wide powers are being taken over an industry to which they are singularly inapplicable.
I stand before the House as the eternal optimist. It may not be thought that I have very good grounds for doing so, but I stand here believing the best of Her Majesty's Government, believing that there must be some good in them. With the beneficent operation of Providence, some common sense may begin to burgeon between now and October.
The Minister has told us that he expects that vesting date will be 1st October. It is one thing for the Government to expect vesting date to be on a certain day, but it is quite another thing for it actually to happen. It may well be that the Postmaster-General's hopes, like other hopes cherished by his colleagues, will not fructify. In that event, he can return to Parliament in the new Session—whatever party may be in office. It is not too much to ask, that if Parliament happens not to be sitting when the right hon. Gentleman finds it convenient to cut the apron strings of Parliament which shackle this industry to Parliament, he should postpone the date and for once have regard to the convenience of Parliament rather than the Post Office.
The right hon. Gentleman leapt to his feet to answer the debate without showing any willingness to listen to the argument. I can only imagine that he wants to get this into operation as quickly as he can and, above all, to hear as little as possible from Parliament. The Secretary of State for Education and Science said that one of the purposes of the Bill was to cut the Post Office from the apron strings of Parliament—a singularly bureaucratic phrase, which I should not have expected from that right hon. Gentleman. It is an adequate description of the Government's attitude to Parliament. The less they hear of this tiresome assembly which every now and then makes them look the idiots they are, the better they will be pleased. I feel resentful. It is an ill-considered hotchpotch of a Bill, and I want to see its coming into operation postponed until the last possible moment.
The Amendment seeks to give Parliament another chance; we cannot pray against the Order. My modest proposal might take only half a day. If the Minister says that it is unusual or improper to have an affirmative Resolution following an Order in Council, the Government should redraft the Bill so that they have


the duty to require an affirmative Resolution from both Houses of Parliament before bringing the scheme into operation. I have no desire to be offensive to the Minister. He is personally respected, but he represents an Administration which is totally discredited. It is, therefore, the function of Parliament to try to hold up schemes in which it feels no confidence at a time when the country feels no confidence in the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman is in no danger of misunderstanding where I stand. I hope that he will take seriously the point that Parliament as a whole should have the chance of pronouncing again on the Bill, even if only by way of sad obsequies of farewell. We have lost no opportunity of warning the Government of what we believe will be the harmful consequences to the nation of the scheme upon which the Government are apparently bent.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I support any Motion that calls for an affirmative Resolution rather than a negative Resolution. While I and my colleagues on both sides have had the privilege of considering the Bill in great detail in Committee, my hon. Friends who have spoken on the Amendment have been able to speak only on Report. They are concerned that they have not had enough time to discuss all that is involved in abolishing the office of the Master of Posts and everything that goes with it. I am sorry that this ancient office is being abolished. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that to retain the name would have difficult legal complications—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather from what the hon. Gentleman said that he has discussed the Bill in detail in Committee. He cannot discuss the abolition in detail on this Amendment.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise if I am out of order. Although I have had the benefit of discussing the Bill in detail, many of my hon. Friends have not. If this is the last opportunity, I will say goodbye to the Master of Posts and wish the Corporation the best of luck in the future.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I am grateful for the opportunity to support

the arguments of my hon. Friends on this matter of constitutional importance. The Minister seemed to be arguing that once the Bill had passed the House with the Clause as it stands, that was a fait accompli, and we could not come back and have another go as my hon. Friends wanted.
Vesting day is a most important day when the legal position will change, and the creature that was once the Post Office will become quite another creature with distinct legal rights. The Minister has said that he wishes vesting day to be 1st October. That will fall in the Parliamentary Recess, when hon. Members have the smallest influence on events. If on 1st October there were to be in power a dying Government, one of whose last steps was, without Parliamentary interference, to bring this Act into operation, the country may have forced down its throat something which it does not want, which it cannot stop and which Members of Parliament cannot stop because they are not here and have no power to do so. For those reasons I support the arguments of my hon. Friend.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I wish to associate myself with all three of my hon. Friends who have spoken, but my point is a new one. It will not be beyond your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that less than a week ago Clause 13, on which we had spent some time in Committee, disappeared quite mysteriously with its throat cut. I have in mind that the right hon. Gentleman may find himself, if we send the Bill to another place, in the position of destroying other Clauses. I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman, like a chameleon, takes colour from his background, and his views on the Bill are more influenced by views which are not overtly but covertly expressed behind him than by those put forward by the Opposition. I feel that there is a danger—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment soon, I hope.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: My argument is that it is important that the House should have a chance to look at the Bill in its final form. One knows that Amendments are made in another place, and in turn in this House. One also knows that Governments in their


wisdom sometimes bring in Lords Amendments in the dark of night to the House of Commons at a time when there is a shortage of Members to discuss them. This is a further reason for commending the Amendment.
An even more valid point is that we were promised the Bill in legislation a year ago. For one reason or another—and I do not purport to understand the reason for it—it was delayed for a year. The Postmaster-General cannot put before the House the argument that the acceptance of this Amendment would postpone his action by a month. He has already postponed his action by a year. These seem to me to be two good and valid reasons for supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I shall be brief, but I wish to point out to the Postmaster-General that this is a fundamental Amendment. It is no slight matter. Built into it is the thinking which will follow through the whole of this Bill from this side of the House.
We are asking simply that a measure of Parliamentary control should exist. The people of this country, whether in regard to the Post Office Bill or anything else, are concerned that there is insufficient control. We ask that the Postmaster-General shall allow this final discipline to be taken in this House and elsewhere.
We are saying goodbye to the Master of Posts. That may be a sad occasion, but I cannot believe that it requires us to say goodbye to him five months before he goes away. It is sensible, in view of the unsettled political situation which now exists, to leave that decision a little nearer to the time when he will take his leave of absence.
We are very concerned about preempting the future. We are all in some fear, on this Clause and on others, about the fact that a body is to be set up which lacks any effective control by Members of the House. I ask the Minister to look at the matter once again. He has constantly been referred to in debates on the Bill as a reasonable man. I am sure that he is. Therefore, I would ask him please to be reasonable on this Amendment.
The Amendment is not complicated. It will not throw the Bill out of gear. But I ask the Minister to accept a measure of control in order to give us a chance to put away the Master of Posts in a tidy, orderly manner. Since the appointed day is not until 1st October, it will seem most odd to the House and to the general public that we should say goodbye to him now, in May.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I wish to support the Amendment for many of the reasons which have already been put. I apologise to the Minister for presuming to speak on this Clause at all for, like many other hon. Members of the House, I have had little opportunity, for various reasons, to take part in the debates on the Bill. I am sure that the Postmaster-General will understand that many of us who wish to participate in debates are not always able to do so because of other inevitable and unavoidable commitments.
I am anxious that the door should be kept open to discussion, even if it is kept open only a little, so that those of us who have not previously had an opportunity will eventually be given one. This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) in his customarily generous fashion, recognising that his colleagues had not yet had his good fortune on this Bill.
I also wish to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). As always I agreed with everything he said, with one solitary exception. He said that at present the Government have a majority and can achieve the Bill without difficulty, but that at some future stage the situation may change. I am bound to put it to him that he cannot be so confident that the Government would be able in all circumstances to obtain their legislation, for there is great disagreement on the benches opposite, which also could apply to this particular Measure.
The Postmaster-General in his intervention in the debate—I hope that it was not his final reply—made three objections to the Amendment. He said first that it was sentimental to want to keep the post of Postmaster-General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I called the Postmaster-General to order for seeking


to discuss the merits of the Bill on this Clause.

Mr. Griffiths: I was seeking to reply to the points he made, possibly a little wide of order, and I gather that I shall be wide in replying to them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will, however, remember that I did call the Postmaster-General to order.

Mr. Griffiths: I simply would record that my hon. Friend's Amendment would allow hon. Members, at such future time as the Order came to be discussed on an affirmative Resolution, to contest the suggestion that sentiment has no place in this matter. I welcome the Amendment which would allow us in that particular debate, which would otherwise be denied to us, to deploy the case which I am not now, alas, able to deploy.
Secondly, and well within the terms of order, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General said that it would be unusual to require that an Order in Council should be subject to affirmative Resolution. That was his case. I cannot think that that is right. It ought to be subject to affirmative Resolution in this House when a post of the undoubted public standing of the Master of Posts is abolished and when the accountability to Parliament of this great office is removed from us.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was the 101st Postmaster-General. I wish that there could be many more Postmasters-General. But I am sure that if he is indeed to be the last, there ought to be opportunity for this House on affirmative Resolution to discuss his final obsequies, as one of my hon. Friends described them. I am quite sure that it was wrong for the Postmaster-General to urge the argument that it is unusual to have an affirmative Resolution. It is very unusual to abolish the post of Postmaster-General. Therefore, the argument that it is unusual simply will not stand.
There was then his further argument, again I understood within the terms of order, that it would upset the timetable if there were to be an affirmative Resolution occasioning a debate in the House. I cannot accept that the upsetting of the timetable of the Post Office is good enough reason to snatch away from the House of Commons any further opportunity

to debate the matter at all. There have been many vesting dates set by Government Departments—under all Governments—which were very convenient to them. But what matters is what is convenient to the House, and whether the Measure being brought into effect is seen to have been thoroughly ventilated in the House of Commons. What is important is that something is not taken away from the British people, the customers of the Post Office, without there having been for every Member of the House, so far as possible, opportunity to express the views of his constituents.
I fear that the House will go into the Summer Recess and that we shall return to find that, for all practical purposes, the Postmaster-General has disappeared. But I suspect that during the months that lie ahead many of our constituents, who are not able to pay as much attention to the details of the Bill as we pay in this House, will begin to rise up and appreciate what they are about to lose. As a result they will bring pressure to bear upon us in the summer months in the hope that, when we come back after the Recess, we shall be able to have a debate on an affirmative Resolution in which once again we can express to the Government the feelings and desires of our constituents, the customers of the Post Office, that this office be not removed from their midst and above all from their access by way of this House.
7.30 p.m.
Those are the reasons which the Postmaster-General advanced against my hon. Friend's arguments. But it seems to me that there are some positive arguments which can be adduced from this side of the House to support his Amendment. The first is that an affirmative Resolution places the burden of proof where it belongs, upon the Government. The Government would have to come to the House with their affirmative Resolution and the Minister would have to explain in some detail what he proposed to do. There is a great deal of difference between an Order in Council, which most hon. Members probably do not even see, and the opportunity which we should be afforded by the Minister having to accept the burden of proof for what he proposes to do. Under the affirmative procedure, we should have that opportunity. As it is, we are to be denied it.
Another argument in favour of the affirmative procedure is that it gives exposure by way of the Press and by way of such programmes as "Today in Parliament", so that it is made known to the people what the House of Commons is doing. If we are to be confronted with an Order in Council, some hole-in-the-wall, unseen little creature, in all likelihood the people who ought to be made aware of it will not know until it is too late. I submit that the affirmative procedure placing the burden upon the Government and giving full exposure to what they are doing is a far more sensible and just proceedure and more in keeping with the traditions and good sense of this House.
Thirdly, the affirmative procedure, above all, establishes the principle of accountability to Parliament. The Order in Council that is proposed would not be subject to debate, in all probability would never be noticed, or noticed only if someone outside this House happened to raise the matter, whereas the affirmative procedure places accountability clearly upon the Government and allows all hon. Members to consider the case that they make.
Lastly, perhaps I might put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. His Government have brought in many policies which, in the event, will be a near run thing. He has put it to us that he hopes that vesting day will be in October and that it would be extremely inconvenient if anything happened between now and October to get in his way. Many things could happen. We could have another financial crisis. We could have a change of Government. The important fact remains that we have too many dates lying ahead of us. The date of withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and the date for getting out of Singapore are only—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are doing very well so far, but not the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, I retreat at once from the Gulf. My point is one of principle, and I seek merely to illustrate it by saying that this, too, could become a near run thing. The Postmaster-General should not place us in a position where, five months in advance, we have to abandon any possibility of

debate by the Affirmative procedure when October comes.
The right hon. Gentleman has very little to lose by accepting the Amendment, except, as he said, a bit of convenience. The convenience of the Post Office is as nothing compared with the principles of accountability of exposure and of the burden of proof resting upon the Government. Those matters are more important than the administrative convenience of the Post Office.
I am glad to support my hon. Friend's Amendment and, with the concurrence of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), I hope that it will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friends have put forward a variety of reasons why we should support the Amendment. Most hon. Members will agree that nearly all of them have been extremely cogent.
The Postmaster-General said that we have had many debates on this matter, but I would remind him that the principal debate on it took place right at the beginning of our deliberations before we knew what was to happen in the rest of the Bill and before we knew the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman and the Assistant Postmaster-General would adopt. As we said often in Committee, they were invariably courteous, polite and pleasant. However, very often they showed a considerable degree of obduracy towards our well-intentioned and helpful Amendments which inevitably altered our attitude to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said, we had the rather disturbing experience the other night when Clause 13 was removed from the Bill. This seems to be a most important reason for supporting this Amendment, because what has happened once may happen again, and the pressure from the benches behind him to which the right hon. Gentleman gave in so cravenly may be repeated in another place.
While we have an opportunity to consider the Amendments of another place, we do not have an opportunity to consider the Bill as a whole when those Amendments come from the other place. The fact that something may happen in the other place to which we have a strong


dislike must be a compelling reason why we should want second thoughts. However, there are other reasons why we should want second thoughts, though, in deference to your earlier Rulings, Mr. Speaker, I will not go into them in detail.
The office of Postmaster-General is an ancient and honourable one. It has been somewhat devalued by the present Government, not by the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, I hasten to add, but by the very quick turnover in Postmasters-General. Someone once said that the Ministry of Health was like Didcot Junction: people only went there on their way to somewhere else. Regrettably, the same has been true of the office of Postmaster-General under this Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On this Amend-merit, we are not discussing the Postmaster-General or the multiplicity of Postmasters-General or other Ministers on their way through Didcot Junction.

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, I think it is relevant to point out that one of the reasons why we are anxious to have second thoughts about the Bill is that we are appreciative of the post of Postmaster-General and are reluctant to see it abolished unless the reasons are compelling.
The third reason why we want second thoughts and why we are in favour of the Amendment raises the subject of Parliamentary accountability, on which many of my hon. Friends have dilated with considerable cogency. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to Parliamentary accountability was slightly ambivalent. Whereas the Bill is designed to do away with Parliamentary accountability, when we moved Amendments designed to improve the efficiency of various parts of the Bill we were faced with the argument, "This would reduce Parliamentary accountability." On the other hand, when the Postmaster-General was doing something that he wanted to do, Parliamentary accountability was likely to go by the board.
The Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to shake off that ambivalence to Parliamentary control and accountability by showing that he has respect for the wishes of Parliament

and also for the view that the public takes and should take, about the House of Commons. Parliamentary control is often denigrated—wrongly, in my view—by the public and by the Press, and that attitude is helped by the kind of speech that the Postmaster-General made on the Amendment. He lost an easy and good opportunity for asserting the principles of Parliamentary control, for asserting to people outside this House that the Government believe in Parliamentary control, and that the momentary convenience of the Post Office is unimportant compared with the assertion of Parliamentary accountability.
The right hon. Gentleman's oddest argument was when he said that we should not have an affirmative Resolution in October because such a thing was unusual. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill we have often tried to make the Postmaster-General do something unusual, something different from other nationalisation Bills. With his invariable and no doubt admirable conservatism, he has always resisted our suggestions, as he has today. But it is no argument to a new suggestion to say that it has not been done before and it would be unusual. We appreciate that it would be unusual, but we think it would be all the better for being unusual.
Finally, I turn to the question of date. As was pointed out my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, the Bill has already been delayed for well over a year for one reason or another. This is certainly no fault of the Opposition. Therefore, for the vesting date to be delayed a further month is not a matter which anybody could conceivably worry about.
For all those reasons, we do not feel that the Postmaster-General has given an adequate answer to the Amendment. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends will support it in the Division Lobby.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The Amendment, as I see it, seeks to prevent the Postmaster-General making any orders he likes without an affirmative Resolution both in the House of Commons and in the other place. It appears to me that under the existing machinery the Postmaster-General has the powers of a dictator. That would be all right if it were a prosperous industry, but it


is not. It is no good the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) laughing like a hyena. He may think it laughable, but my constituents do not. They pay more and more and are worse and worse off.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member must seek some other opportunity to debate the imperfections of the Post Office.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I will not labour the point. I will leave the subject, as the man said when he fell from the building.

Mr. Peyton: May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole point of the Amendment is to secure a further opportunity, before it is too late, for

Parliament to discuss the imperfections of the Post Office?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Yes. My hon. Friend has almost made my speech for me.
I do not wish to incur your displeasure, Mr. Speaker. We are nervous because under this Clause the right hon. Gentleman has power to make a bad decision which we in this House cannot prevent. I hesitate to put my last three points in case I am ruled out of order, but the result of the moronic decisions issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department will be bigger losses, increased costs and a worse service.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 217.

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[7.45 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hay, John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bessell, Peter
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Longden, Gilbert
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'Minster)


Clegg, Walter
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Cordle, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Costain, A. P.
McMaster, Stanley
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapseil, Peter


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Doughty, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wiggin, A. W.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Orme, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oswald, Thomas


Anderson, Donald
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Archer, Peter
Hamling, William
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Ashley, Jack
Harper, Joseph
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Paget, R. T.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Haseldine, Norman
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Henig, Stanley
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Barnett, Joel
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Beaney, Alan
Hobden, Dennis
Pentland, Norman


Bence, Cyril
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Binns, John
Howie, W.
Price, William (Rugby)


Bishop, E. S.
Hoy, James
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Huckfield, Leslie
Rankin, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richard, Ivor


Boston, Terence
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Hynd, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Bradley, Tom
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Brooks, Edwin
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchan, Norman
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rowlands, E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ryan, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Judd, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Julius


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, John (Reading)
Slater, Joseph


Crawshaw, Richard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lomas, Kenneth
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
McCann, John
Tomney, Frank


Dell, Edmund
MacDermot, Niall
Tuck, Raphael


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Urwin, T. W.


Dewar, Donald
McGuire, Michael
Variey, Eric G.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
Mackie, John
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyenth (Exeter)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoorly, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclcnnan, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weitzman, David


English, Michael
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ensor, David
Manuef, Archie
Whitaker, Ben


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Mrs. Eirene


Evans, Ioan L. Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willey, Rt. Hn. Froderick


Finch, Harold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mendelson, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'ton, Test)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Winnick, David


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Neal, Harold
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Newens, Stan



Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ogden, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Malley, Brian
Mr. Charles Grey and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Walter Harrison.


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Orbach, Maurice

Clause 4

TRANSFER TO THE MINISTER OF THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL'S FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 2 AND 6 OF THE COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS ACT 1949

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 2, leave out 'sections 2 and' and insert 'section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we can discuss the two following Government Amendments, No. 6 and No. 7.

Mr. Slater: The three Amendments will delete from Clause 4 references to Section (2) of the Commonwealth Telegraphs Act, 1949, which has been repealed by the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act, 1968. The repeal took effect on 1st April, 1969.

Amendment agreed to.

Futher Amendments made: No. 6, in page 5, line 3, leave out from '1949' to provisions'.

No. 7, in line 7, leave out 'those sections' and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. Joseph Slater.]

Clause 6

THE POST OFFICE

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 37, at end insert:
'but not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members'.
We come now to that part of the Bill which deals with the structure of the new Post Office. On Clauses 6 and 7 we shall be considering some of the responsibilities that the new body will have to discharge. I draw the Postmaster-General's attention to the Long Title, which says, among other things,
… conducted by the holder thereof amongst authorities constituted for the purpose …".
It is our contention that the constitution laid down in Clause 6 is vague in the extreme. Subsection (2) says:
The Post Office shall consist of a chairman and, to a number not exceeding twelve nor falling short of—


(a) three, as regards the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the day immediately preceding the appointed day; and
(b) six, after the expiration of that period, of other members, whether part-time or full-time."

The purpose of the Amendment is merely to define what these six shall do. At this early stage in the Bill, it is important that we should start as we mean to go on. Vagueness in setting up this body will prove harmful. Earlier, we were discussing vesting date as being 1st October, and while that may seem a long way away in terms of organising the new body, it is not so very far away.
I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman has allowed the drafting in Clause 6 to be so vague. So far, he has proved intransigent to suggestions from this side, but I hope he will look favourably upon this sensible Amendment. The Clause deals with the structure of the new body, which will have a great sweep of new powers. He should, therefore, ensure that there is in the Bill a clear definition of how many part-time and how many full-time members should serve.
Consistency is lacking in Clause 6. In subsection (2)(a) we have a clear definition of the period up to the appointed day. That is quite sensible and understandable. But for some unknown reason we move from that period into the future with no definition. The Postmaster-General owes the House a clear explanation why the matter has been left in this way.
8.0 p.m.
Later in the same Clause we have the normal definition of the sort of people who would be likely to serve on this body. I was comparing it with the definition of people likely to serve in the British Steel Corporation, and I found that except for about three words the definitions are identical.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend will doubtless have noticed that in a later Amendment the Postmaster-General is proposing to remove the definition altogether.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, but that had not escaped my notice. I do not


understand why the Postmaster-General is going in for this very vague structure. Perhaps he will be able to explain the reason. I can assure him that the public—and we are the stewards of the public purse—are not helped by this apparent vagueness. The Postmaster-General said earlier that he was anxious that the Corporation should enjoy the same benefits as would a private body. I can assure him that no private body would draw up its rules of procedure in this vague, open-ended manner.
If the Minister will not say who the people will be—whether they are to be part-time or full-time—why bother to retain this part of the Clause? It is meaningless. It refers to six people and implies that we do not need to go into detail whether they are full-time or part-time members. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the Amendment sympathetically.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) has complained that the provisions in the Clause are vague. I beg to disagree with him; they are clear. He asked a number of questions which were not strictly in order, but as he was not ruled out of order perhaps I may explain that subsection (2)(a) allows a minimum of three members to be appointed on Royal Assent and to hold office until the appointed day so that they can prepare for the smooth handing over of the Post Office to the Post Office Corporation, which will take over on the appointed day.
The reason for the words "whether part time or full time" in paragraph (b) is to make it crystal clear that the Minister may appoint part-timers to the board. The House generally recognises that there is an advantage for part-timers with outside experience to be allowed to participate in the activities of the boards such as this, although they may not have full-time executive responsibilities.
Snell individuals can be of great value to a board, because they are able to inject into its deliberations a great deal of their own experience of the outside, and can provide many opportunities for contact between the Post Office and outside bodies with which the Post Office would wish to be in contact. There is

therefore an advantage in spelling out in this subsection the fact that part-timers may be included.
I am attracted by the figures proposed in the Amendment. My view is that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends may have got the figures right—for this point of time. But it is my responsibility to appoint members of the board both for the interim period and after the appointed day, onwards. I may well choose to appoint part-timers within the figures laid down in the Amendment, but we are concerned with something which will apply, if not for all time, for a very long time, and I believe that it would be unwise for the House to try to limit the position of a future Minister who, in the light of the experience of the board, might wish to appoint a different number of part-timers from that quoted in the Amendment.
For those reasons I appeal to the House to give a future Minister more flexibility than the Amendment would allow. I appeal to the hon. Member and his Friends to consider withdrawing the Amendment. If they will not, I must advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Peyton: I agree that one of the complaints about the Clause is that it is vague. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand that Parliament does not always take kindly to giving a blank cheque to Ministers. The fact that there is Parliamentary hostility evidently does not discourage Ministers from a bad habit, namely, the introduction of loosely-worded Clauses like this, with the Government telling the House nothing about their intentions for the board.
That is why I put down an Amendment concerning part-time members. This question affects the whole constitution of the board. All that we are told is that the Post Office shall consist of a Chairman—surprise surprise; these boards each have a Chairman—and a number of members not exceeding 12 or falling short of three. A board consisting of three members is much too small. That would more or less prohibit either any part-time member being on the board or anybody being ill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going outside the scope of the Amendment, which is to delete a later line in subsection (2).

Mr. Peyton: I hope that you will not take too narrow a view of this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had only a brief discussion. The Amendment provides an opportunity for the House to pass comments on the structure of the board. If we are inhibited from mentioning anybody except part-time members it will be very difficult—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but the Amendment is precise. It relates particularly to the line in question, which is concerned with the balance between part-time and full-time members.

Mr. Peyton: There is a contrast, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with the structure of the board, and if we are talking of the number of part-time members that we should have on the board it involves some reference to other members. They will not all be part-time members, or we would not get very far.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not wish to argue with the hon. Member, but the question of the membership of three concerns a different period from that covered by the Amendment, which relates to a period subsequent to that covered in subsection (2)(a). It is a different period, and therefore a different board. I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Peyton: That is a matter of construction. I am not wholly satisfied that that is the case. If it is, it means that the draftsmen's construction of this subsection is that there is no possibility of having a part-time member under paragraph (a) during the first period. If that is so, the Postmaster-General should make it clear. I would find it quite unacceptable that this neophyte board should have no benefit of outside advice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not put down an Amendment to cover that point. The Amendment covers the period in subsection (2)(b), and I am afraid that he cannot go back on paragraph (a).

Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. Surely the last line of the subsection is related to the first two lines of the subsection and is therefore concerned with both paragraphs, (a) and (b).

Mr. Speed: Could the Postmaster-General perhaps clear this up, because it is germane to the number? We are discussing part-time members. Are they included in (a) and (b) or is it just (b), as he and his Department understand it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not want to restrict the debate. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help us.

Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order. With great respect, it is not for the Postmaster-General to say what he meant the words to mean. This is a matter of drafting and you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no possibility of talking about part-time members. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) was right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. This is a matter for the Chair and not for the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I rule that the Amendment relates to the number six and not to three. Therefore, I stand by my original decision.

Mr. Ridley: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that line 37 starts at the beginning of the margin and therefore presumably applies to the whole subsection? If it were to apply only to paragraph (b), it would not start at the beginning of the margin.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Amendment refers to two and not more than four. This could not relate to the three in the beginning anyway. I have ruled and must ask the hon. Gentleman to adhere to the decision.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order. Surely the words
… of other members, whether part-time or full-time.
must refer to the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment seeks to write into this subsection the words
but not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members".
As it includes four, it could not possibly relate to paragraph (a), which refers only to three members.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow further discussion, I am sorry. The hon. Member was correct in his submission on the two and carried out what I believed to be order.

Mr. Stonehouse: With respect, I should like to point out that
… of other members, whether part-time or full-time.
does relate to paragraphs (a) and (b). That is my understanding of this. I put this point of view, with respect, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that there shall be no misunderstanding as to our intention about this subsection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What I am concerned with is the Amendment. The Amendment includes the numbers two and four. It may well be that line 39 of the subsection covers paragraph (a) as well, but the Amendment does not cover paragraph (a), because its numbers, by their very size, exclude that paragraph, witch accounts only for three.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order. With great respect, the Amendment includes two, which plainly is included in three, and also says:
… not less than two nor more than four …".
So the Amendment refers to both. "Not less than two" refers to the three and the whole of it applies to both—

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will allow me just a moment to reflect.
I am sorry, but, on reflection, I must adhere to the original decision. If we are talking about numbers which vary between two and four, they cannot possibly relate to subsection (2)(a), which, at the maximum, includes three. I must allow the debate to proceed on that basis.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Stonehouse: Further to the point of order. Subsection (2)(a) refers to the minimum of three, which could well be more: it could well be up to 12. There is a certain flexibility here for the Minister. He must appoint a minimum of three, but has flexibility up to 12 in relation to paragraph (a) as well as paragraph (b), in which the minimum is six but the flexibility is up to 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has helped me to clear my mind. I must alter my decision and allow the Amendment to apply to subsection (2)(a). The term "minimum" alters my view and I will therefore allow the Amendment to cover paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). Mr. Peyton.

Mr. Peyton: In thanking you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must say that I do not in the least envy you your heavy task, and I am sorry if I have been the cause of embarrassment to you, but I am grateful to you for your guidance in ruling as you have done.
My argument relates basically to the structure of the board. When I put down the Amendment, I introduced some flexibility, because I recognised that the size of the board would grow. We should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman something about the proportion, whether he envisages that it will be a regular proportion between part-time and full-time members, and what he regards as the optimum number of the board, as opposed to the maximum number.
He will be aware that it is not always easy to get adequate people to sit on the boards of nationalised industries, for two reasons—first, because they are singularly ill-rewarded financially, particularly part-time members, and, second, because they seldom get anything except kicks. Their rewards are very shabby.
Often, when they are attacked, here or elsewhere, Ministers—I willingly exclude the right hon. Gentleman from this—are too cowardly to defend them. I know that, if the right hon. Gentleman were responsible, he would do his best—rightly so—to defend his own appointees on such boards. It is important that those who serve on them should have the confidence that, so long as they are kept in their jobs—in other words, so long as they hold the Minister's confidence—they will aways enjoy his public support. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would go along with that.
The House is entitled to some more enlightenment about the Minister's thoughts on the whole structure of the board and about how many part-time members he is thinking of. He has said that he thought that the Amendment had it just about right. We take that as a


graceful compliment, but I should like to know in more detail what he has in mind. That is a sort of Freudian revelation which shows the type of people the Minister would consider as appointees to the board. I appreciate the Minister's remarks about there being some value in having part-time members, and I will leave the rest of my comments—I had intended to speak at some length about the type of people who should be appointed—until later.
I do not like the idea of Ministers asking Parliament in vague terms—Clause 6(2) is a good example of vagueness—for powers to appoint, leaving matters to work themselves out. There should be a clearer duty on those concerned and the provision should not be left loosely phrased.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to take part in this discussion. I rise to disagree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because, unlike him and my right hon. Friend, I am not enamoured of either the Clause as drafted or the Amendment. Indeed, I am not all that keen on having part-time members on boards of this kind.
I do not believe that part-timers of this type are as necessary, able or efficient as we are led to believe. Nobody knows precisely how much time they put in or the value of the work they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Yeovil said, invariably they are more than adequately paid. A man earning £10,000 a year will not consider part-time employment producing £2,000 a year as particularly well paid, but to a nurse earning a few pounds a week £2,000 a year is a fortune.
The radio is not unconnected with the Post Office. There was once a man called the "Radio Doctor" who became a Tory Minister and who—this is typical of the present Labour Government—was appointed Chairman of the B.B.C. He works part-time in that post and I am told that he draws about £6,000 a year, but he is also earning between £10,000 and £15,000 as chairman of a private company.
If the Minister will appoint
… not less than two nor more than four … part-time members
of this board, what salaries are they to get? Will they earn £6,000 a year in

this capacity? How many hours will they put in and how many meetings will they attend? The odds are 1,000 to 1 that they will all be Tories because it is the habit these days of a Labour Government to appoint Tories as chairmen of all sorts of organisations, including the B.B.C. and the public sector of the steel industry. We are creating jobs for the boys, but Tory boys, on a part-time basis. What is more—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The principle of part-time members is already accepted in the Clause, which is not at present under discussion. The Amendment seeks to write in a balance between full-time and part-time members. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment in his remarks.

Mr. Lewis: Did not the Minister adduce precisely the argument that I am adducing but in reverse, Mr. Deputy Speaker'? Both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Yeovil went further and spoke of all sorts of ancillary matters, and the hon. Member for Yeovil said that part-time members of this type were not well paid. I am putting the other side of the argument.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to oppose the principle which the Clause already accepts. Neither the Minister nor the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) did that.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am merely seeking to discover what
…not less than two nor more than four … part-time members
means. Why two? Why not more than four? If two is the right figure we do not need a reference to four. My experience of one part-timer in such a capacity is that he or she may frequently not attend meetings because his or her outside interests are worth more. It is a strange phenomenon of the human race and part of the British character that people tend to give more time to the function which produces for them a larger salary. If one of these part-timers is earning £15,000 or £20,000 in a private capacity, he will not, for £6,000 in a part-time capacity, attend meetings of the board if they conflict with meetings affecting his outside interests. Why is there a reference to
… not less than two nor more than four …


and why is there no mention of three? Is it thought that if two do not turn up for a meeting there will still be two others who will attend? If two have not bothered to turn up perhaps the other two will not turn up either for the very reason that the first two decided to stay away.

Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under Schedule 1 the whole board may be absent for up to three months without disciplinary action being taken? Why is he confining his remarks to part-time members? The whole flipping lot might not turn up.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: If I were to answer the hon. Gentleman I should probably be called to order, but I take the point he has made.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman said that the trouble with having two or four part-time members was that they might all be away. Surely that is an argument for having more part-time members, because then some of them might be there.

Mr. Lewis: I had not thought of that point. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or some of his colleagues will tell us why the magic figure of two or the magic figure of four was picked on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment, if accepted, would not place a mandate on the Postmaster-General to appoint four part-time members. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is arguing on the basis that four is a mandatory figure. The Amendment would give flexibility. It suggests an upper limit and a lower limit to the number of part-time members. I feel, that the hon. Gentleman still has not quite appreciated the point.

Mr. Lewis: I am arguing in accordance with the Amendment, and I am giving my reasons for thinking that neither figure is suitable. If the Amendment were carried, the maximum number of part-time members would be four and the minimum would be two—

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: If I may say so, I am now beginning to see why the Minister did not write in a figure. A lower figure of two part-time members in a board of 12 appears to us to be

sensible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain why the figure should be different.

Mr. Lewis: Neither figure has been logically explained to me. I cannot see it working very well with this board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not think these the right figures, but he is now on the point of principle that these members should be part-time.

Mr. Gilmour: The Clause as it stands does not make it obligatory for them to be part-time members. The Amendment would do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so surely the question of whether or not there should be part-time members must be relevant to the discussion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the question of whether there are part-time members is left to the Postmaster-General, so the principle of part-time membership is accepted. We are now discussing whether the balance should be written in by this Amendment.

Mr. Gilmour: With great respect, the present position is that there may or may not be part-time members on the board. The Postmaster-General has discretion there. If the Amendment were to be accepted, there would have to be at least two part-time members. The matter would then no longer be within the discretion of the Postmaster-General. I therefore suggest that whether or not there should be part-time members is highly relevant to our discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for West Ham, North was discussing the whole question of the principle. It is conceded in the Bill that, if the Postmaster-General wishes, there may be part-time members. The Amendment accepts that principle by seeking to write in the number of part-time members. The question whether part-time members should be included at all is not an issue on this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I may say, having listened to all the speeches in this debate, that I think that the debate has been widened enough by earlier speeches for even the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to go through.

Mr. Lewis: I seem to be back where I started. I was right in saying that the Amendment would prescribe not fewer than two nor more than four part-time members, but I see no logical reason for either figure. I know that the Clause says that the Postmaster-General will be able to decide whether there should or should not be part-time members, but I am not arguing that point. He will decide one way or the other, and he may still say, "We shall have 12 as part-time members." If I discussed that at length, no doubt I should be out of order. I shall not argue on the 12, but the same principle could apply to the 12 as to the two or four. Whether it is two or four makes no difference. It seems a waste of time, money and endeavour to give mandatory powers to the Postmaster-General that he must have two or four part-time members.

Captain Orr: The Amendment says that he must not in any circumstances have more than four.

Mr. Lewis: I agree, but two or four would be equally bad. I cannot see the necessity for two or four part-time members. I agree that as the Clause stands the Postmaster-General can have two, four, six or 12. The Amendment says that he must have two as a minimum and no more than four as a maximum.
I think we have got it clear, but it is a little difficult when one gets into this field of high mathematics. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) would work it out with matchsticks. We have to decide, if we agree to this Amendment, whether to mandate the Postmaster-General, whoever he may be at the time, to have two or four part-time members. Those members would have no restriction upon them as to how many hours they put in, and there is no suggestion about how many times they have to attend meetings.
The hon. Member for Yeovil said that part-time members are underpaid and therefore rather difficult to get. I think that there are plenty of honourable people in the Post Office who would give part-time service on such part-time salaries because those salaries would be more than they get for their full-time work at the moment. I assure the Postmaster-General that he should not worry about

whether there are two or four. He should stick to the 12 full-time members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill already gives power to the Postmaster-General to appoint part-time members. The question is the number and whether it shall be mandatory.

Mr. Lewis: There is no necessity for this Amendment. My right hon. Friend should stick to the Clause as it is. As it stands, the Postmaster-General will have the right to appoint up to 12 in whatever way he thinks fit. There may be 12 part-time members or six of one and half a dozen of the other kind, or he can have the two or four as suggested by the Amendment.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member is right. The Postmaster-General could have two or four part-time members, but unless the Amendment were accepted he could have all 12 as part-time members, which I am sure is not what the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that probably the Clause could so empower my right hon. Friend. I do not think that, if the Clause were unamended, he would appoint all twelve as part-time members, but if the Amendment were carried my right hon. Friend would be obliged to have at least two, and probably four, part-time members. I do not back horses, but if ever there were a cert it is that if two or four were carried it would go into the Bill.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is a question of defining the numbers. As the Bill stands, it could be any number. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would not wish it to pass as it is now.

Mr. Lewis: It is a question of which is the lesser of two evils. One is leaving it open, so that nothing would be laid down obliging the Postmaster-General to do something, whereas the other definitely would. The whole of my case is to try to persuade my right hon. Friend not to have two and not to have four part-time members. If I could persuade him not to accept the two or the four, the odds are that if the Clause were left as it stood he would appreciate that there should not be any part-time members.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is defeating his own argument. The Amendment, if carried, would guarantee that at least eight members would have to be full time because the maximum number of part-timers would be four.

Mr. Lewis: It would also ensure that there would be four part-timers. If, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Amendment would ensure that there were eight full-time members, the remaining four would be part-time. To impose a mandatory requirement of two or four part-timers would be wrong.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman spoke of a choice between two evils. Surely he can see which from his point of view is the greater evil. If he stands with the Postmaster-General, he is accepting that by law the Postmaster-General could if he wanted appoint 12 part-time members. The Amendment would limit the Postmaster-General's discretion to appoint 12 part-time members and would limit the number of part-timers to four, thereby helping the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have the knowledge that my right hon. Friend has. The hon. Gentleman forgets that after my right hon. Friend has listened to me arguing he will never consider the two or the four, in which case the hon. Gentleman's point will not arise because my right hon. Friend will stick to the 12 being full-time members. I have convinced hon. Members opposite, even the hon. Gentleman, so much so that he is talking about only eight full-time members. My case is that we do not want any part-time members, but this will mean that four will have to be. The Postmaster-General has no right to contract out. He will have to have either two or four.
8.45 p.m.
I should not like my right hon. Friend to be in that position. I might have to ask him hereafter why he had appointed two people part-time to the board. His reply would be, "Do you not remember the Amendment which was passed on Report? You remember the great day when the Secretary of State for Social Services put the health charges up? That was the day when it was agreed to make it mandatory on me to have two or four part-time members on the board". Then,

speaking to him not as Postmaster-General but as a good friend, I would say, "Well, John, old boy, I am sorry about that", but he would say nevertheless, "There it is. I have no alternative". My response would be, "If you have to have two or four part-time members on the board, what about it? There are a couple of trade unionists I know who have given a lifetime of service to the Post Office. What about putting them on?". His immediate response, no doubt, would be to tell me, "We always put Tories on these boards". May I have an assurance that they will not be Tories?

Mr. Speed: Mr. Speed rose—

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Lewis: Just a minute. Hon. Members seem to be queueing up to interrupt. As I was saying, I should be against that. I do not like giving the Minister or this Government the right to put Tories in good well-paid jobs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment has no reference to the character, qualities or politics of the members who are to be appointed.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but past experience has taught us what to expect. Now, who was first on the list to interrupt?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue his speech and not incite interventions.

Mr. Lewis: I am giving way to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has missed the basic point that the more part-timers there are on the board the smaller will be the total salary bill, because part-timers are paid less than full-timers. The hon. Gentleman ought to be arguing the other way.

Mr. Lewis: I am not sure about that. If they are all part-timers who never turn up, we might find ourselves with amending legislation to provide for more full-timers, and then we should have to double the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Amendment, which would lay down the actual


number, thereby circumscribing the Minister's action. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that he is going wide of the question.

Mr. Lewis: It was the fault of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. He should learn that, when intervening, he ought to do so within the confines of the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That also is outside the Amendment.

Mr. Speed: I am against the hon. Gentleman, but may I try to help? Does he not see that the minimum number is six, and 12 is the maximum. It could be four part-timers out of six.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come in or where he has arrived from. Perhaps I should explain the point to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the whole of his speech again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), whether he has recently come in or not.

Captain Orr: It could be four out of six.

Mr. Lewis: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to do a little mental arithmetic out loud, I shall listen.

Captain Orr: I was just confirming that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is right. Under the Amendment, one could have a board with six members, four of whom are part-time.

Mr. Lewis: Not if the original Clause is carried.

Captain Orr: Yes, out of six.

Mr. Lewis: No. It is four out of 12, which leaves eight.

Mr. Ridley: It does not have to be that always.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, according to the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the hon. Gentleman look at subsection (2)(b)? The board shall consist of the chairman and
a number not exceeding 12 nor falling short of"—

and then in paragraph (b),
six, after the expiration of that period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is right; it could be four out of six.

Mr. Lewis: I stand corrected. I had not seen paragraph (b). My eyes are not all that good. Subject to the new teeth and spectacle charges, perhaps I might get on better. I did not see the (b). I shall have to ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to help me.
The point I was making when the hon. Member for Meriden interrupted—I shall not go over it all again, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat any of his speech.

Mr. Lewis: I shall not go over it again, but I was about to explain some of my reasons why I did not agree with either two or four. I speak with knowledge going back a few years, and experience has taught me that when part-timers are appointed—and I am not concerned with whether there are two or four, because the principle is the same—they are likely to be like the two or four or two or three dozen part-time members of other boards. I have found invariably that they have so much other work and so many other activities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. The principle as to whether the Postmaster-General may appoint part-time members is already accepted in the Clause. As I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman several times, all that we are considering now is whether it should be mandatory on the Minister to include particular numbers, with an upper or lower limit. The hon. Gentleman must keep in order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. I take it that in your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are referring to subsection (2)(b). It is the six who may be part-time or full-time. In subsection (2)(a) the figure three is given. That matter has been dealt with, but as I hope to catch your eye shortly I should like to be clear. Are you ruling that the principle of whether there should be part-time members at all is excluded from debate in respect of the whole dozen,


because the dozen is made up of the three under subsection 2(a) and the six-plus of subsection 2(b)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not excluded. What I am saying is what I have said several times—and I must insist that no hon. Members go out of order in this respect, that the principle as to whether the Postmaster-General appoints part-time members is already enshrined in the Clause, and is therefore not at issue at present. The question is whether the actual numbers of a mandatory requirement be written in, which is the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that I had shown hon. Members opposite quite clearly that this is a question of whether it is two or four. I had not discussed the general principle. I was explaining why I thought the two or four would be a bad number to have. I was trying to explain that to me two or four are just as bad. I could perhaps say that one would be bad, but as that is not in the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has repeated this argument several times. He is in danger of becoming tediously repetitious.

Mr. Lewis: I had started to explain, because an hon. Member who has now left the Chamber wanted to get this clear. I shall not go into the question of two or four, but simply argue the merits of why two or four would be an unsatisfactory number on which to mandate the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman, but he has attacked the Amendment, which lays down two possible figures, and made it clear that he does not want a board of part-time members. He has not offered a solution between those two areas.

Mr. Lewis: I have not offered a solution because I should be out of order. I object to the Amendment because it specifies the number which the hon. Gentleman wants to insist that the Postmaster-General accepts. This is one of the reasons why I am speaking against the Amendment. His Amendment does nothing worthy of support, and it may do the opposite to what I wish, namely it may make it obligatory upon the Postmaster-General to accept a minimum of

two and a maximum of four part-time members. I could not accept part-time people in such an occupation.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has given us a display of mental expertise and agility which should be an example to us all. He is a sort of standing computer, and the facility with which he dealt with the complicated mathematics contained in this Amendment was exemplary. I found a great deal in his argument which I could support because I am a little unhappy about my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do not know whether it is right to make it precise as to how many members of the board of the Post Office should be part-time.
On the whole, the maximum amount of flexibility should be left to the Minister. The board is not in the same position as the board of a private company. The directors of such a company are there to represent the interests of shareholders, and to insist upon the maximum use of the shareholders' capital, so that it is imployed to the best advantage and the greatest profit, and nothing else. They are not there to look after the public interest, to think about social considerations, uneconomic services or the interests of consumers.
They are, solely and utterly, there to maximise the return upon the shareholders' capital and they represent the shareholders. The board of a public corporation is in quite a different position. No one puts members on such a board, say the Coal Board, so that they should use as their sole criterion the maximisation of the return upon investment made by the taxpayers in coal—or even railways or telecommunications. If they did, it would be a very strange state of affairs. The directors of the Coal Board would say, "Let us stop digging up coal and get some oil from the Middle East, because it is much more profitable." The directors of the Post Office would say, "Let us not continue to erect these kiosks in remote villages, let us not continue with the post, let us not have a whole serious of things, because they are not strictly economic."
The function of the board of a nationalised industry is totally different from that of a board of directors in private


industry. We are wrong to try to ape a private board—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I am having difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment. Perhaps he will help me?

Mr. Ridley: It is right to leave the maximum flexibility in this matter of the appointment of members, whether full or part time, to the powers to be in future. I am arguing that it would be wrong to lay down a firm upper and lower limit, of four or two respectively, because I want the field left wide open so that in future different decisions can be taken. I was advancing an analysis of what the functions of a nationalised board are, to support that contention.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not helped me. What he has said has confirmed my feeling at the time that he was out of order.

Mr. Ridley: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one must be able to bring up arguments in support of one's case. My case is that it would be wrong to tie down the Minister either to four or two, or any number of, part-timers. I am speaking against my hon. Friend's Amendment to tie down too firmly the number of appointments to the board. I might find it difficult to justify that point of view if I were not allowed to give the reasons why I think that, which is all I am trying to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The statement made by the hon. Member is perfectly in order. The wider consideration which he was going into appears to be unrelated to the remarks which he has just made.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Am I to understand that my hon. Friend is saying that if we give total flexibility—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be wiser to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his speech, and the Chair will then decide whether or not he was in order.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am merely asking my hon. Friend a question.

He asks that the Minister should be given total flexibility, but is he aware that, as the Clause is drawn, that means that the board could consist, apart from the chairman, wholly of part-time members?

Mr. Ridley: I am aware of that, but my hon. Friend's parenthesis, "apart from the chairman", gives him the answer. This is the contention which I am tentatively wishing to put forward in support of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for West Ham, North. Instead of a group of people representing the shareholders' interests, there is here somebody managing the Post Office on behalf of the Minister, or the Treasury, which owns the Corporation. The manager of this industry is called the chairman, and the chairman of such an enormous Corporation should have on his board people who will be of assistance to the manager in managing the industry, and not people who are there to help an outside group of shareholders which in this case does not exist. The chairman of a nationalised industry should have complete scope to put on his board people whom he thinks will be helpful, whether they are part-time or full-time.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As a strong supporter of free enterprise, as I am sure he is, is my hon. Friend saying that the chairman of any board should have complete discretion as to whom he appoints to that board? If he is saying that, will he say how that chairman would ever be disciplined or brought to order by the board, which would be his own creature and would be rather like the present Cabinet?

Mr. Ridley: I am saying just that. I would remind my hon. Friend that the 12 people who are on the board are appointed by the Minister and, therefore, the chairman does not have complete say as to who they are. The other 259,000 people who work in the Post Office are not, and the chairman has complete discretion as to who they are. I point out to my hon. Friend the anomalous position whereby the chairman is allowed to appoint 259,000 people but not the 11 most important people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid than is not at stake in this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I quite agree. My hon. Friend misled me, and I apologise for having erred into the direction of his question. I asked this in Committee, and I think the House will do me the justice of agreeing that I am consistent in saying that the main board should be appointed by the chairman, with the Minister perhaps having a power of veto.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He is not addressing himself to the Amendment at all.

Mr. William Baxter: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on a point that I have ruled to be out of order.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. I am most anxious, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the line of argument. The Amendment stipulates
… not less than two nor more than four shall be part-time members
of the board. I am most anxious to hear the argument for these particular figures. I have not heard it up to the moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am hoping that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Amendment, which is concerned with exactly that point.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. Surely an hon. Member who finds that there is no method of knowing whether or not an hon. Gentleman will come back to the point of an Amendment, has a right to intervene to draw to the attention of the Chair that the hon. Gentleman is departing from the basis of the Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is usurping the function of the Chair. The Chair had already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that he was out of order.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) perhaps had not understood that I was speaking rather contrary to the Amendment. I was not in full support of the number of part-time members being written into the Bill. I argued in favour of flexibility and of leaving the question more or less open.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Am I to take it from the concluding remarks of the hon. Member that he supports me and in fact is not in favour of either two or four?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member will have heard me say just that, not less than two times not more than four, during the course of what I have already said. I think that the matter should be within the jurisdiction of the Minister.
I am not certain about part-time members. There are times when part-time members are suitable on the boards of nationalised industries, but I can envisage circumstances when there should be none at all. If the Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible for there to be none since it stipulates a minimum of two.
I well remember the passionate attack on part-time members of boards made by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) when we were debating the Steel Bill. Although I do not employ the same reasons as he did on that occasion, my criticism of part-time members is as follows. They bring expertise to a board. If somebody knows a great deal about commerce, finance, marketing or some technological aspect of an industry, then in order to secure his advice it sometimes has been suggested that he should be put on the board of a corporation. I believe that that sort of advice is better obtained by means of consultation and by the payment of a proper fee. Indeed, I feel that sometimes we get highly-skilled advisers on the cheap by making them part-time members of nationalised boards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting off the point. The Clause already gives power to the Minister to appoint part-time members. What we are now discussing is whether a particular balance and number shall be mandatory on the Minister. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: With the greatest respect to the Chair, I do not believe that it should be mandatory on the Minister. I believe that he should be free to have no part-time members if he so desires. I was seeking to advance an argument as to why that should be so.
It might well be that the sort of part-timer who could give valuable advice to the Post Office in future would be somebody who would give his advice for a fee and who could be consulted rather as one consults a merchant banker or a consultant in technology or engineering. It would be far more suitable for a nationalised industry to employ that method of getting advice rather than that it should have on its board two part-time members, as would follow from the Amendment. In many cases, part-time members can be helpful, but there is no point in tying oneself down to two, four or, for that matter, three part-time members.
The whole structure of the board should be left as loose as possible though I would accept the corollary that the Chairman should have a special responsibility because the members of the board are simply the chosen advisers and assistants of the chairman and should be in no sense in a statutory position as the directors of a private company are. There is all the difference in the world between a private company and a public company in this respect.
I am hesitant about the wisdom of accepting the Amendment, though it may be that some arguments yet to be advanced by my hon. Friends will persuade me that I am wrong.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) has done us a service in that it was not entirely clear to me that if the subsection were not amended it would be possible for the Minister to appoint a Post Office board wholly of part-time members.
I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) because, like him, I believe that there should be the maximum amount of flexibility. However, in my view, the flexibility proposed is too great. The board will be one of great importance. To understand how important its composition is, one has to look again at the entire Bill and what it is intended that the board shall do.
It will administer one of the greatest employers of labour in the country. It will administer something which has immence

authority and power, with an influence which is all-pervading throughout our society. It will also administer what is probably the greatest act of nationalisation that has taken place in our history. The extent of its monopolistic powers shows clearly that the composition of the board will be of maximum importance.
I find it difficult to decide whether there should be a mandatory upper or lower limit on the number of part-time members whom the Minister can appoint, without knowing something of the managerial functions which they are to perform. It is most important to know whether the board is to have the overall surveillance of a director-general who will be managing director, whether the chairman will be managing director, or whether the board will run the enterprise from day to day. It is upon that kind of consideration that we should decide whether to compel the Minister to have a certain number of part-time members or stipulate an upper limit to the number of part-time members whom he can appoint. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about this, because it is important. This is not simply an argument amongst ourselves about numbers, with hon. Members engaging in some sort of lottery. We are dealing with what will be a great nationalised industry—

Mr. W. Baxter: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of part-time members or full-time members?

Mr. Hay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. and gallant Friend is led by the wiles of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) into answering that question, will he not be transgressing the Ruling about which you have advised us several times?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The issue of part-time members is established already in the Clause, and it cannot be raised on the Amendment.

9.15 p.m.

Captain Orr: Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I was in the course of putting a point to him when the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) raised his point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Member that what he is putting to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is out of order.

Mr. Baxter: That may be so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If it is so, the hon. Member cannot proceed. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter: With respect, I was raising a question to which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took no exception.
The hon. Member for Henley raised a point of order to draw attention to what he thought was an inaccurate intervention on my part. You, in your wisdom or otherwise—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is either in order or out of order. That is a matter for the Chair to declare upon. The Chair has ruled the hon. Member out of order and that is an end to it. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot argue with the Chair. Captain Orr.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet asking a question and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had given way. A point of order was raised, and I appreciate your ruling on the matter. As it appears to the majority of the House to be correct, I bow to that ruling. On the basis of the Amendment and the questions that were directed to the House for its edification and solution by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, I wanted to know, because of his remarks, whether he was in favour of part-time members. I was coming on to say that whether there be two, four or more, the Amendment stipulates that there are to be
not less than two nor more than four …
I could not grasp the purport of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which seemed to imply that there was no justification for part-time members at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understood the hon. Member to be raising the

whole question of the principle of part-time membership. I have ruled on several occasions that that is already established in the Clause and is not to be questioned. The Amendment is a different matter. I hope that the hon. Member will not seek to debate with the Chair. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: Captain Orr rose—

Mr. Baxter: Mr. Baxter rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled. Captain Orr.

Captain Orr: I understand that I could not answer the hon. Gentleman on the general question whether I was or was not in favour of having part-time members on this board. What I could answer him on is whether I was or was not in favour of having a mandatory limit, either upper or lower, placed upon the part-time membership of the board. If the hon. Gentleman will listen to me with his accustomed care, he will discover that I am arguing that it is extremely difficult for me to make up my mind on the question without having answers to certain other questions which we do not have at present. In other words, we need to know, before we can say whether there should be a mandatory limit on the number of part-time members, what the board will do and what, if there should be part-time members on the board, those part-time members will do.

Mr. Dempsey: Mr. Dempsey rose—

Captain Orr: That, I think, is not unreasonable.

Mr. Dempsey: As the hon. Gentleman says that he is against a mandatory upper or lower limit until he knows what the board and the part-time members will do, may I ask whether he is in favour of three part-time members?

Captain Orr: No. I think that the same argument applies. It would be outside the Amendment anyway. It is difficult to come to a conclusion whether there should be a mandatory upper limit to the number of part-time members that the Postmaster-General can appoint to the board until we know what the board will do. That we do not yet know.

Mr. Speed: It might help my hon. Friend's deliberations if I point out that the quorum for the board is to be three—perhaps only 25 per cent. of the total.


The activities of the board, whether of its part-time or its full-time members, may not be so important on that basis. The size of the quorum may help to influence him in deciding whether he should ask for two or four part-time members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) must not let the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) lead him astray. We are discussing whether to make it mandatory that there should be at least two and not more than four part-time members. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South should address himself to the Amendment, which I think he is supporting.

Captain Orr: I would let my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) lead me almost anywhere but not astray, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it would not be his intention ever so to do. I think he is drawing attention to the fact that the question of a quorum is relevant to whether or not we put a mandatory lower or upper limit upon the Postmaster-General's discretion. As the Clause is drafted, we could have a board consisting of wholly part-time members. This is a serious argument, to which I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will address himself. It is difficult to reach a decision about this discretion of the Postmaster-General's without knowing what the functions of the members of the board are to be. Is the board, for example, to be like the B.B.C.'s Board of Governors?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member looks amazed, but he must know that further on in the Bill the powers and duties are set out.

Captain Orr: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because I remember very well the discussions in Committee about the powers and duties of the board. But we have not had specific information—and this is probably relevant—about whether or not there is to be a director-general—in other words, whether the board is going to operate like the B.B.C.'s Board of Governors, where there are a chairman and members of the Board in a supervisory capacity but where the running of the organisation is in the hands of the director-general. Is the same system

to be applied to the Post Office board?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That should have been discussed some time ago. Clause 6 says:
The Post Office shall consist of a chairman …
and then specifies certain numbers. The Amendment seeks to impose a minimum number of two part-time members and a maximum number of four. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must address himself to it.

Captain Orr: The Amendment seeks to put a restraint upon the discretion of the Postmaster-General in the appointment of the board. But it is difficult to know whether he should be allowed to have unlimited discretion as to the proportions of part-time and full-time members without knowing precisely how the board is to be managed. I shall not labour the point. I merely ask the hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of what is proposed.
I cannot support the Amendment. I come near to the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that there should be a greater flexibility than the Amendment suggests. I do not like making it mandatory and saying that at least two members of the board should be part-time. I do not see why we should insist upon that. I do not think that my hon. Friend has made out a case for it.
On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that there should be an upper limit. This is not to be a board of dilettantes; it is to be an important functional body, charged with potentially the greatest monopoly in our history, and we should be very careful in framing the legislation that will affect it.
I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to say that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place he will consider whether there ought to be a limit upon the ministerial discretion at the upper end of the scale and that a certain proportion of the members of the board should be full-time. I find myself in a roughly mid-way position in respect of the Amendment. There is a good argument for there being an upper limit, but I cannot support the Amendment as it stands.
It would be useful if the Minister could give us some idea of the salary scales that are expected to be laid down, giving the difference between part-time and full-time members. I see that you are becoming, restless, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening very keenly.

Captain Orr: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker; I knew that you would be. If we are to decide upon the correct proportion between part-time and full-time Members and whether the proportion should be limited by legislation, it may be relevant if we can hear from the Minister whether there will be a great difference in the salary scales involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister would not be in order in replying to that part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument.

Captain Orr: I am desperately disappointed, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that we would have a fruitful discussion, but if it is to be out of order we shall have to abandon it.
Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General will ask his right hon. Friend whether he could consider something along the lines that I have suggested. There are later stages of the Bill to come. It must go to another place, and it must come back. In another place the Government will have a further opportunity to meet some of our points. If we had an undertaking that these points would be considered it would be easier for us to help the Minister resist the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: It is clear from what has been said by hon. Members and by your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister can appoint part-time members but that with the Amendment he need not. The question is whether he should appoint them. In my opinion he should. Part-time members can stand back from the day-to-day fray of an enterprise. They do not have a sectionalised vision. They are unlikely to be brought into conflict with each other, as people who are permanently engaged in an industry and are fighting in their own

corner may be, and they can hold a benevolent umbrella over the work of those who are there every day.
Most Ministers would agree with that, but it is by no means clear that every Minister will appoint some part-time members. Indeed, if, after the forthcoming political convulsion, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) were appointed Minister, we should have no part-time members; he has just said so. Therefore, the Bill should provide that there should be some part-time members, and a lower limit of two is very reasonable. If there were only one, he would be a sectional interest of his own, on a par with the full-time members, each of whom was primarily concerned with a separate aspect of the business.
Second, whereas most Ministers will wish to appoint one or two part-time members, freedom and flexibility, of the importance of which we have heard so much, will be no good to them if they cannot use them. Pressures might be put on Ministers and the chairman of the Post Office Corporation to have no part-time members. Pressures are already put on boards to this end. I should have thought that a sensible Minister would welcome this shield against something which he would recognise as an undesirable pressure.
We are constructing a very complicated new authority, which is elaborately specified in a Bill consisting of 139 Clauses, 11 Schedules, and 260 pages and costing 22s. It is as if we had specified and built a complicated ship and had produced a great volume saying that the skin of the hull was to be one-eighth of an inch thick, that it was to be welded to the sub-frames and that the engines were to be of an exact horsepower and then, at the end of this extremely detailed specification, on being asked whether any of the top 12 officers were to be sailors, we said, "We do not think it matters and we are certain that it will be all right on the day; the person in charge will do the right thing. Whatever he thinks best will be done, but we do not mind." That must be to our discredit. We cannot produce an elaborately specified new authority without specifying in some small way who are to be the top 12 people to run it.
I see problems with the top limit also. The suggestion is four, which is a reasonable number of part-time directors, provided that the full board of 12 turns up.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that the board need not consist of 12 members and that, as the Clause stands, if the Minister wanted to appoint only six or eight, the four part-timers could well be either a four-sixths majority or a half; namely, four out of eight. There is nothing mandatory about 12.

Mr. Smith: That illustrates a defect in the Amendment. It probably should have been supported by another Amendment either providing that the top limit of four should be reduced if the Minister did not appoint the full board, or probably obliging him—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such an Amendment might improve the Amendment, but it is not on the Notice Paper. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Amendment which we are considering.

Mr. Smith: I have been treading the narrow plank of order, Mr. Speaker, and I leave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) to answer his own question later.
The upper limit of four mentioned in the Amendment would be desirable if all 12 members of the board turned up, but we should remember that the quorum is three. It would, therefore, be possible for the affairs of the Post Office to be conducted entirely by part-time members if none of the full-time members turned up. The sort of organisation which is being created must be controlled properly. This question of the board's quorum and many other matters must be clarified, and until that is done I cannot support the Amendment.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: It is clear that the Clause as drafted enables the Minister to appoint a board composed entirely of part-time members. While I accept that part-timers may have a valuable contribution to make in this capacity, we must have a competent board. How much time will part-time members give. Will it be one hour a day, one day a week or one day a year? It would be unfortunate if the Post Office

were to be managed entirely by people who gave so little of their time to it.
It is important that the day-to-day business of the Post Office is managed by full-time members. Considering the multifarious activities of this organisation—postal, telephone, telegraph, Savings Bank services and so on—fulltime members must take responsibility, although I appreciate that valuable service could be obtained from part-time people. There must, therefore, be a strict upper limit.
The right hon. Gentleman explained the figures he had in mind when he said that those mentioned in the Amendment—a lower limit of two and an upper limit of four—were roughly those whom he would employ if he were appointing members today. The point is that he may not be the Minister responsible then, and it is important to write into the Bill words which will make it plain that at any rate the preponderance of the board will lie with full-time members.
The important thing is to have an upper limit. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that, in a sense, it is a little unfortunate that the Amendment invites us to accept a lower limit as well. But if only to get the upper limit I would also accept the lower limit, because without such an Amendment the Clause is left in a very dangerous state.

Sir Eric Fletcher: I am opposed to the Amendment, because it seems to me to take away the very desirable degree of flexibility there is in the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Alison: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher) should take that view, because I think that, without the Amendment, there is a bit too much flexibility in the Clause; that is to say, it seems possible for the Postmaster-General to secure a board on which there are not any part-time members at all. That would be a great disadvantage.
I am a great believer in the power that a fresh injection of outside experience and interests often has to revolutionise the practice and performance of an undertaking. The Postmaster-General will not be unaware of the extraordinary effect of the arrival in the professional


railway world of an industrial chemist, Lord Beeching, who, for the first time, imported a wider perspective and a new kind of discipline into the administration of that great undertaking—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Was Lord Beeching part-time? I thought that he was full-time. He certainly got a full-time salary.

Mr. Alison: The principle applies in part to those who are part time. The principle is valid in part measure with part-time appointments. Another example is provided in electronics, where a top economist, Arnold Weinstock, revolutionised the accountancy side of a great corporation. It must be valid that part-timers have an important contribution to make.
I am not unaware of the interest earlier shown by the Postmaster-General himself in seeking to write into the Bill certain disciplines, which he went so far as to spell out. I believe, for example, in the necessity of having directors or members of a board who have some experience in industrial affairs, or in commercial affairs, or in professional or financial matters, or in pure or applied science, or in politics, economics, technology and administration. The Postmaster General showed quite a remarkable sensitivity, although, perhaps, too much sense of embroidery, in seeking then to demonstrate the relevance of these extraneous disciplines to the operations and administration of the Post Office.

Mr. John Smith: Would my hon. Friend call politics a discipline?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Alison: Perhaps the discipline of politics is getting somewhat frayed at the edges in certain parts of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is talking about embroidery. He must come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Alison: At your behest, Mr. Speaker, I must return to the Amendment from the intervention. The Postmaster-General has been at some pains to point out the relevance of disciplines outside that of the pure professional work of the Post Office as one of the essential ingredients for making the future board of the Corporation as efficient and forward-looking

as it could be. One of the possible results of ruling out part-time members of the board would be that although appointments may be made from those who up to that time were persons with
wide experience of, … industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration",
if they are forced to become full-time members the experience that they brought from those other fields of discipline will progressively become more and more remote and more and more out of date. It will recede into the background as the Needles recede behind the stern of the "Queen Elizabeth".

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to make it mandatory that at least two and not more than four shall be part-time members.

Mr. Alison: If unamended, the Clause would make it possible for part-time members from these professional backgrounds to be excluded at the mere whim of the Postmaster-General. There would be no obligation on him to have such part-time members. It is no adequate argument to say that those who are appointed full-time to the board may come from such disciplines as I have mentioned, because the experience they bring with them will become increasingly remote.
In a profession such as medicine an ordinary general practitioner has to spend an enormous amount of time, even though he is fully engaged in medical work, to keep up with the latest developments in his discipline. He has to keep fully in touch with all that goes on in hospital or medical practice and it is difficult for him to keep up with all the developments in the discipline. How much more difficult would it be for a chemist seconded to the Post Office Corporation full-time, or an accountant or research scientist, or any other category which the Postmaster-General spelled out, to keep up with the disciplines of the world from which they have come. There must be a repeated coming and going of the insights and experiences and values of other fields of discipline which we seek to thread into the skein of the Post Office.

Mr. Speed: Perhaps my hon. Friend should turn his mind to the fact that


the Minister may within the powers of discretion appoint not more than six members. If the Amendment were accepted he could appoint four of those six as full-time members. If it were not accepted, and the number of part-time members were left to the Minister's discretion, then if two thirds were part-time members there would be such a storm that he would have to bow to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report stage. The hon. Member has nearly exhausted his right to speak by the length of his intervention.

Mr. Alison: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) fell short of exhaustion, because the point he made is important. It is a matter of highest ideology and in a sense of conceptual debate. If the Bill as amended imposed a disproportionate number of part-timers it would be erring in the right direction. There is need to lace into the directorship of the Post Office repeated breaths of fresh air from other disciplines. It is of crucial importance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: indicated dissent.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I appreciate his position, but even he, with his repeated criticisms of the professional people who run the nationalised industries, will feel that they often get bogged down in narrow activities with too little awareness of the outside interests affected.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: One of the other advantages of a part-timer is that he does not derive all his income from one occupation and therefore has greater independence in the advice he offers.

Mr. Alison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) for pointing that out. It is certainly an additional reason for including part-time members as a de jure requirement. I hope that he will have the opportunity to develop that case at some length, because it underlines the importance not only of bringing in external disciplines to the board but also the financial independence which ensures that the views from outside can be pressed home.
I hope that the Post Office will have a framework of administration so that it

will always be certain of having the insidious influence of a Beeching, a Weinstock, or even of someone like my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who would be able, as a part-time member, to bring the whole experience of the City into the Post Office. The Amendment would at least ensure some part-time members on the board and I hope that we shall not find ourselves in the position of having a board whose professional directors are becoming more and more isolated in narrow detail and a specifically limited range of activities, becoming more and more out of touch with developments in such things as electronics, communications and transportation and all other activities affecting the efficiency and output of the postal services, so that the Post Office fails to rise to the heights that it could if outside experience were applied to it.

Mr. Speed: I find myself in considerable difficulty because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I am not enamoured of the argument that having two or four part-time members of the board would necessarily improve the running of the Post Office. I shall not stray beyond the rules of order, because I know that this point is something we can explore later. Under subsection (2) we may be talking in terms of six members of the board, including, if we allow discretion to the Postmaster-General, two or three part-time members. On the other hand, we may be talking of 12 members, and there is an argument for having at any rate two part-timers out of a total membership of 12.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) referred to Lord Beeching and others and the great wisdom which such members could bring as part-timers to the Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) suggested that, if a member of the board were not wholly dependent on the Post Office for his income, it would be beneficial. On the other hand, if a member were dependent for the whole of his income on the Post Office, that would be an incentive to his working to ensure that the Post Office made a profit.
On balance, we should probably be throwing out the baby with the bath water in accepting the Amendment. We


are committing ourselves to at least two, which may be two out of six, and at most four, which may be four out of 12—taking both sides of the possible totals involved.
I hope I shall not stray out of order if I bring in the question of the quorum. It is relevant if the quorum of the board is three. If the Amendment is accepted—or even under the Minister's dispensation if it is not—it would be possible for the quorum of the board to be made up of part-time members only, and I am not sure that one would necessarily regard that as a happy state of affairs.

Mr. Robert Cooke: A jolly good idea.

Mr. Speed: I hear my hon. Friend say that, but I consider that it would be far from a good idea.
We cannot amend the Amendment. For my part, I should like an Amendment to prevent the eight, ten or 12—whatever be the number—members of the board all being appointed part-time at ministerial discretion. But, as we found earlier when considering the whole Clause at a time when you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker—it is capable of several different interpretations by the Clerks and by right hon. and hon. Members. At the moment, it seems that matters are left too much to ministerial discretion in the number of members of the board and, therefore, the number of part-time members as well. I hope that in another place the Clause may be tightened up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am in the Chair now. We are not discussing the Clause. We are discussing the Amendment.

Mr. Speed: But I am concerned, in the context of the Amendment, lest we import into the Clause undesirable restrictions on the Minister's flexibility so that we could find ourselves with a disproportionate number of part-time members as against full-time members of the board. Therefore, unless I hear from my hon. Friends further and more cogent arguments than I have heard so far, I shall be inclined to join my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). He may have made up his mind already. I am not at present inclined to support the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, the House indulged in an interesting numbers game in which we divided the figure 12 into twos and fours, with varying results, for some time. Since then, my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has considerably raised the level of debate. I think that I find myself somewhere between his more philosophical contemplations and the computer-mindedness of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
There is one crucial difficulty on which I should value your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding further. The House is being asked to decide what proportion of the board shall consist of part-time members, but we are asked to make that decision without knowing what the board's powers are to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that already. The best way to obtain Mr. Speaker's advice is by going out of order and being called back to order, but I particularly ruled on the specific question during an earlier speech. The powers of the board are set out in a later Clause. We may not discuss that now. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in case he does not know, that we are discussing whether a statutory obligation shall be laid upon the Post Office that at least two and not more than four members of the board shall be part-time members.

Mr. Griffiths: I understand and accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to make the point in passing that it is difficult to know how many men one needs in a battalion unless one knows the objective which it has to take.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning the truth of what the hon. Gentleman says, but being true does not necessarily make it in order.

Mr. Griffiths: I am much obliged, Sir. If the Clause is passed as it stands, the Minister will have absolute discretion to appoint to the board as many part-time members as he likes. He could appoint 12 such members, so that the board was a purely part-time board. If the Amendment is passed, it will be mandatory upon him to appoint between two and four members who are part-time. That has one advantage from my point of view, in that it allows the House


of Commons to lay down the nature and composition of the board, rather than leave it to the absolute discretion of the Minister.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Post Office Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McCann.]

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 175.

Division No. 191.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Garrett, W. E.
Marks, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David


Alldritt, Walter
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Anderson, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Archer, Peter
Greenwood, Rt, Hn. Anthony
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Baxter, William
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Molloy, William


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan, (Cardiganshire)


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Binns, John
Haseidine, Norman
Murray, Albert


Bishop, E. s.
Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis
Oakes, Gordon


Boston, Terence
Horner, John
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice


Brooks, Edwin
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rankin, John


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dell, Edmund
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Driberg, Tom
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roebuck, Roy


Dunn, James A.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E.


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ennals, David
MacDermot, Niall
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph


Finch, Harold
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Istington, E.)
Mackie, John
Steele Thomas (Dunbartonshire W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Foley, Maurice
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taverne, Dick


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Fowler, Gerry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Freeson, Reginald
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T. W.




Varley, Eric G.
Whitaker, Ben
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilkins, W. A.
Winnick, David


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Watkins, David Consett)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Weitzman, David
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. John McCann.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pardoe, John


Astor, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Bessell, Peter
Hunt, John
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Blaker, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Body, Richard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Stainton, Keith


Cordle, John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Costain, A. P.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
McMaster, Stanley
Summers, Sir Spencer


Crouch, David
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (Now Forest)
Temple, John M.


Dance, James
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Maude, Angus
Tunton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Doughty Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Waddington, David


Drayson, G. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Fisher, Nigel
Munro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitelaw Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wiggin, A. W.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant, Anthony
Heave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Mr. Jasper More.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I was putting to the House the points of principle on which I support the Amendment. The first point of principle is that by inserting the words in the Amendment we should

be limiting the discretion of the Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: I am in favour of limiting the discretion of the Minister in the


selection of people to serve on the board. It is right that Parliament, so far as possible, should control the Minister's discretion in this matter, and the Amendment would go to that point of principle by specifying in advance and by the will of this House the type of board that should be appointed to look after the affairs of this industry.
My second point of principle is that, like my hon. Friends who have spoken, I am in favour of having part-time members on the board. It must be obligatory on the Minister to have a number of part-time members. I need not detain the House with the reasons; they are self-evident. A board which is to do its job satisfactorily must be able to obtain from outside the limited horizons of the Post Office the skills, disciplines and independence of part-time members who will be able to give wise counsel and guidance to the professional Post Office people who, with the greatest respect, have not always made the best decisions. I maintain as a matter of principle that the House should lay it upon the Minister that there should be an obligatory number of part-time members. They can do nothing but good for the Post Office and for the consumer of Post Office services.
10.15 p.m.
As soon as one has made those two important points of principle, one comes to the crucial matters in this Amendment. One must answer two questions. First, how many part-time members ought there to be? Secondly, what proportion should this number of part-time members bear to the board as a whole?
These two questions would appear to be the same, but in fact they are not. The one important difference between them is that we do not as yet know, until the Minister has decided, of how many members the board shall consist. If he decides under the Clause to appoint 12 members, the proportion of part-time members to the 12 members will be a different proportion than if he, in his discretion, decides to appoint only nine or perhaps, as he may appoint, only six.
This is an important point, and goes to two matters. First of all, it goes to the question of what shall constitute a majority of the board. One must presume that a majority of the board will

take some very important decisions about the whole postal service. Therefore, the question of how one arrives at a majority within this powerful board is of crucial importance. Secondly, there is the question of a quorum. A quorum is not the same thing as a majority since a quorum permits the board to meet at all, and a majority determines what it shall decide.
I wish to ventilate both the matters of a quorum and of a majority. By the Amendment one has a choice between a minimum of two and a maximum of four part-time members who will be obligatorily appointed by the Minister. But since also there will be what one may call a moveable board of somewhere between 12 and six, we do not know whether a proportion of that number of either two or four part-timers to the complex question of the board as a whole makes for different proportions.

Mr. Alison: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the proportion which part-time members should bear to full-time members, would he care to consider whether the proportion which subsists in the directorship of the Bank of England, in which out of a court of 20 four are full-time and the other 16 part-time, might be an appropriate proportion to have?

Mr. Griffiths: I feel that I should be trespassing on the indulgence of the House if I were to pursue that since my ignorance of the Bank of England is almost total.
Because of this relationship between the number of part-time members which is suggested and our ignorance of the size of the board of which it will constitute part, we are confronted with nothing more nor less than a whole series of mathematical permutations and combinations which will bear on the decision-making machinery of this important board. I shall illustrate three possible combinations which can arise.

Mr. Speaker: I am not too interested in the permutations and combinations which can exist. We are discussing whether the minimum number of part-time members of the board which the Minister must appoint shall be two and the maximum four.

Mr. Griffiths: The point which I was endeavouring to make was that, before


we make a decision whether it should be two or four, as we on this side are proposing, we must be able to see what proportion that two or four will bear to the board. Otherwise, we shall not know how a decision is reached by a majority.

Mr. Speaker: May I help the hon. Gentleman? We are not deciding whither it shall be two or four. We are deciding whether it shall not be less than two nor more than four.

Mr. Griffiths: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Let us suppose that the Minister appoints a board of six persons. If three of them are part-timers, with more than two and not less than four, it will be possible for them to prevent decisions being made by the six members whom the Minister has appointed.
To take another example, supposing the Minister were to appoint eight members. If he appointed, let us say, five part-timers, they could block anything. I cannot believe that it is the wish of this House to create a situation where five part-timers could block any decision made by all the members appointed by the Minister. That is why we have put on the upper limit of four. We are trying to prevent five part-timers having a majority on a board of only eight, if that is the number which, in the event, the right hon. Gentleman decides to appoint.
Let us suppose that he uses his full discretion and appoints 12, which I gather is his present intention. What number of part-timers will appropriately represent the interests of the customers and the general interests of the laity, if I may use that description to separate most of us from the more divine beings who run the Post Office board? Let us suppose that, of the 12, he were to appoint one part-time member. He, poor fellow, would be exceptionally lonely, and I cannot believe that the House or the pubic would feel that that was a satisfactory number to appoint. That is why we say two or more. We are not satisfied that there should be only one.
There is a special difficulty about being one part-time member on a board of 12. It is not simply that one is isolated. Indexed, it is the opposite. Because he would be the only part-time member, constantly he would be endowed with

expert knowledge by the 11 professionals, who would always suppose that his view of what should be done had a special authority and excellence. I am sure that the House would not wish that to be the position.
We came to the conclusion that five would be too many, because occasionally the five could block the eight, if the Minister decided to appoint only eight. If he appointed six, they would have a five-sixths blocking majority and could block anything. We also decided that one was too few. Therefore, having considered the matter carefully, we come to the Minister with what must seem—

Mr. Ridley: Why did not my hon. Friend draft the Amendment to say,"… not less than one-sixth but not more than one-third"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all the good will in the world, at this stage we cannot discuss the Amendment which might have been drafted.

Mr. Griffiths: I hasten to point out that I had nothing to do with the drafting of the Amendment. Having listened to the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, I am convinced that what they seek to do here is right. I am making my speech after the House of Commons has done its duty and persuaded me of the wisdom of what my hon. Friends are seeking to do.
What is at issue here is that five would be too many, one would be too few, and, therefore, my hon. Friends are presenting the Minister with what must seem to you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, and to the great British public as a range of choice. He may have two, three or four part-time Members.

Mr. Clegg: I suggest that he might do it like the pools and perm two from four.

Mr. Griffiths: My ignorance of the pools is almost as great as my ignorance of the Bank of England, so I will not pursue that point.
Surely, the Minister, far from sitting on the Front Bench opposite and stubbornly resisting the good sense of my hon. Friends' Amendment, would be wise to get up and thank this side of the House for having provided him with some choice. I realise that his party does not believe in choice, but we do. We are offering him a choice of how many he will appoint to this board.
The heart of the matter is that the Post Office board will be making a large number of important decisions for every citizen of this country. Therefore, it is crucial that the board should have representatives of the public who bring in from other walks of life special skills and knowledge and who, financially, are not totally beholden to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to see on all these boards, and on this one in particular, not fewer than two and not more than four people whose incomes derive from some source other than the Post Office. Only then can we be sure that they have independence and can say to the Postmaster-General, "No, you are wrong here." If he dismisses them they will not be like the payroll vote opposite—scared stiff of ever disagreeing with their Whips.

Hon. Members: Where are they?

Mr. Griffiths: They will stand up to the Minister because they will have some independent financial power behind them. Perhaps I should not press that point too far, because they are a poor lot. But we must have the principle laid down in the Bill that there shall be part-time members. I wish the Postmaster-General would get up and say, "Yes, we want these part-time members. I am extremely grateful to hon. Gentlemen opposite who

have given me this opportunity to have them."

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ian Gilmour: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Is it not unusual for a Government Whip to move the Closure before the Opposition Front Bench has had an opportunity to reply?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can move the Closure whenever he cares to do so. It is a matter for the Government or any hon. Member. Acceptance of the matter is for the Chair. That is the Chair's Ruling.

Mr. James Dance: (seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusion which we have at the moment, may I ask whether we could send for the Government Chief Whip to clear up this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no confusion, except in the hon. Member's mind.

The House having divided: Ayes 224, Noes 172.

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[10. 26 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Freeson, Reginald


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Ginsburg, David


Archer, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)



Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Delargy, Hugh
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Edmund
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Barnett, Joel
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)


Baxter, William
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Beaney, Alan
Dickens, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bidwell, Sydney
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Binns, John
Dunn, James A.
Harmling, William


Bishop, E. S.
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Boston, Terence

Haseldine, Norman


Boyden, James
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John
Hazell, Bert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
English, Michael
Henig, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Ennals, David
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ensor, David
Hobden, Dennis


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Horner, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Finch, Harold
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Coe, Denis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Howie, W.


Coleman, Donald
Foley, Maurice
Hoy, James


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Huckfield, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forrester, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry
Hynd, John




Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roebuck, Roy


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Rose, Paul


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Rt. Hn. William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Mendelson, John
Rowlands, E.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Millen, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Judd, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Kelley, Richard
Molloy, William
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Kenyon, Clifford
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Silverman, Julius


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Skeffington, Arthur


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Slater, Joseph


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Moyle, Roland
Spriggs, Leslie


Lawson, George
Murray, Albert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Leadbitter, Ted

Taverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Neal, Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, John (Reading)
Newens, Stan
Thornton, Ernest


Lestor, Miss Joan
Norwood, Christopher
Tinn, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Oakes, Gordon
Urwin, T. W.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Eric G.


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lomas, Kenneth
Orem, Albert E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Loughlin, Charles
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Luard, Evan
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wellbeloved, James


McCann, John
Paget, R. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacDermot, Niall
Palmer, Arthur
Whitaker, Ben


Macdonald, A. H.
Park, Trevor
White, Mrs. Eirene



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willkins, W. A.


McGuire, Michael
Pavitt, Laurence
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackie, John
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur
Winnick, David


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rees, Merlyn
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Woof, Robert


Mallaliue, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Manuel, Archie
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)



Marks, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marquand, David
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and




Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.


Astor, John
Doughty, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Drayson, G. B.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Awdry, Daniel
Eden, Sir John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jopling, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Emery, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Batsford, Brian
Eyre, Reginald
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Bessell, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Black, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lambton, Viscount


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Body Richard
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lane, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, R.
MacArthur, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackenzie, Alesdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McMaster, Stanley


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Marten, Neil


Carlisle, Mark
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maude, Angus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray


Clegg walter
Hay, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooke, Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cordle, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Crouch, David
Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Miscampbell, Norman


Dalkeith, Earl of
Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dance, James
Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hunt, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)







Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Pym, Francis
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Murton, Oscar
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Neave, Airey
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Royle, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Sharples, Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wiggin, A. W.


Pardoe, John
Silvester, Frederick
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Winstanley, Dr, M. P.


Percival, Ian
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Peyton, John
Stainton, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Worsley, Marcus


Pink, R. Bonner
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.



Pounder, Rafton
Summers, Sir Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Jasper More and


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mr. Anthony Grant.

Question put accordingly and negatived.

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 5, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 8.

Mr. Stonehouse: During our debates I have been chided by Members of the Standing Committee, particularly the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour), for the fact that I had failed to respond to some of their suggestions. I am glad to say that I have been persuaded by some of the observations of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who we regret could not be with us tonight because he has had to go on a visit abroad, and the hon. and gallant Member for Down. South (Captain Orr), who suggested in Committee that I should look at the need for qualifications for membership of the board.
I have considered the suggestion but, on reflection, I believe that it is not necessary to spell out in such detail the qualifications as they appear in subsection (4). I take it that I will have the agreement of the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), whose Amendment No. 15 would delete the qualifications appearing at the end of the subsection.
The Clause really means that it is within the Minister's discretion whom he appoints to the board. The Minister will determine which individuals have the qualifications set out in the subsection and which are, in effect, all-embracing. There is hardly an individual in the country who could not be construed as being within the definition of the subsection. For these reasons it would be better sense to delete the subsection altogether and make it clear that it is within the Minister's discretion whom he should appoint.
I wish to make it clear, particularly for the information of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central, who raised the point—he indicated that, somehow, the withdrawal of the subsection implied a change of mind on the part of the Minister in regard to workers' participation in the Post Office and the selection of members of the Post Office staff for nomination to the board—that there has been no change of mind, neither on my

part nor on the part of my colleagues. We are in no way implying that by withdrawing the subsection we are changing our attitude towards the selection of qualified individuals for appointment to the board.
The Amendment will, by deleting the subsection, improve the Bill; and it therefore follows that Amendment No. 15 is not required.

Mr. Peyton: I am not sure why I have suddenly been saluted as the "hon. and gallant Gentleman" by the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had left any trace of such a distinction a long time ago with the residue of my military career in a prison camp. However, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kindness.
The Amendment is indeed the beginning of light, of a new dawn, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for it. I accept that there has been no change of substance in his mind, but he has obviously coaxed and kicked his Department and the Parliamentary draftsmen into paying a passing salute to the English language. This reverse of casting pearls, so to speak, should be recorded for all time. The subsection which we are deleting reads:
The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience"—
what a strange phrase
and to have shown capacity in"—
another surprising comment
matters concerning services which, under this Part of this Act, the Post Office has power to provide …".
10.45 p.m.
Such was my innate modesty that in approaching this Clause I did not think it worth while the effort to try to uproot this "heffalump" of horror squatting in yet another legislative Measure. I suggested that we should leave out:
the Post Office have power to provide, industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration or the organisation of workers.
There is not a single sacred cow in all our constellation—[Laughter.] That is the wrong word. There is not a single sacred cow in all the hierarchy that has


been omitted or has grounds for complaint.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend is in error. Sociology is not mentioned.

Mr. Peyton: I do not accept that correction. Sociology, at least in the person of most of its students, remains a cow which has not yet become sacred. The Parliamentary draftsman, following the bidding of his masters, has touched his hat to all the horrors in case he should be taken to have offended some sacred cow of unusual sensitivity.
One must feel deeply grateful to the Postmaster-General for having kicked this "heffalump" where it hurts and removed it. It was a horrid, monstrous growth. I am not saying that overnight the Bill will become a thing of beauty. That is impossible because it is still studded with phrases such as "subsidiary to its". One will not be able to call it a Helen of Troy of the Statute Book. Nevertheless, without this bit it will be a great deal better.
Despite the fact that the Government Whips cruelly curtailed a most interesting debate on the last Amendment, it would be unkind to prolong discussion of this Amendment and I must make some attempt to overcome my surprise that the right hon. Gentleman went further than my request. On behalf of that much mutilated thing the English language, the favoured victim of Whitehall so often tortured here, I thank the Postmaster-General.

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is unduly generous to the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman brutally curtailed a very interesting debate before anyone from the Opposition Front Bench had spoken, which did not show that he was amenable to reason. My hon. Friend must be in one of his moods when he feels that he has had such a triumph that he removes the vitriol and becomes complimentary to the Government Front Bench.
The Minister need not be congratulated for taking out the subsection. In Bill after Bill we deal with this sort of thing and say, "Take it out of the Bill. It does not mean anything." That is all we

are doing tonight. We are not altering the Minister's powers. If anything we are increasing them.
Whatever reduced Minister represents the Post Office in the House in the future, he will be severely criticised from both sides of the House if he makes a political appointment. I could speak for a long time on what is meant by "industrial", even longer on what is meant by "commercial", and longer still on what is meant by "professional". I could also speak for a long time on "financial matters" and "pure or applied science". If we wanted to filibuster we could keep the House sitting all night.
I should like the Minister to make it clear that in removing "politics" he has it very clearly in his mind that no appointment under the Clause will be made on political grounds. The House has a right to expect this, and I hope that my hon. Friend who replies for this side of the House will make it clear that we shall be governed by the same reasoning. I can see many reasons for appointing people on industrial, commercial, professional or even social grounds. The one reason I cannot see for appointing them is on political grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman is only a very transient person in the great orbit of the Post Office. I hope that he will make it quite clear that as a result of his removing the subsection his officials will not advise his successors to appoint anybody to these positions on political grounds. I cannot think of anything more disastrous than trying to run a public corporation governed by commercial criteria when the Minister concerned has the right to find the most stupid, reactionary, ignorant, party hack on either side of the House and say, "We should like to reward the hon. Member, and therefore we shall make him a director of the Post Office". I can think of nothing worse for the efficiency or good running of our organisations.
Therefore, I am on a matter of some substance, and I am not being funny when I say that the Minister should make it clear to the House that his advisers in the Post Office will not advise any Government that an appointment to this commercial organisation will be made not on the grounds of a person's commercial knowledge but of his political services.


We are on a fundamental issue. We are divorcing the Post Office from day-to-day Parliamentary control and trying to turn it into an efficient commercial organisation. We have argued on previous Amendments the amount of control the House will have over these activities. The House has decided, in its wisdom, that it will have little control, and it thus becomes an overriding responsibility for the House to ensure that the board is not appointed with any idea of "jobs for the boys" but on the most strict commercial assessment of the ability and efficiency that individuals can bring to the new Post Office organisation.
The fact that the Postmaster-General accepted my hon. Friend's Amendment which was pressed in Committee indicated that his arguments convinced the Postmaster-General of the rightness of taking this from the Bill. Having taken it from the Bill, a political atmosphere may still rule in the appointment of people in the Post Office or may remain in control of the Post Office board. In divorcing the Post Office from Parliamentary control, the House must try to ensure that we produce what we have never yet succeeded in producing, a worthwhile form of public corporation. The result in the past has always been that we criticised every public corporation whenever we have had the opportunity. There is still too much push and pull of politics in the public corporations and the Postmaster-General now has an opportunity to make it crystal clear that in Post Office thinking and in the advice he will give to his officials there will be no suspicion that a person who is up for appointment to a position, whether full or part time, will be out because he has political connotations. It may be said that the Conservative Party will be in power—and, in spite of what was said on a public platform about people going on, I do not know whether they are going on. It might not be long before a Conservative Government is appointing a board. I would oppose political interests or activities just as much if Conservatives were appointing those to run the organisation. It is about the largest organisation in the country and the only way to run it efficiently is to get the most ruthless and commercial industrial brains to do it.
If the appointment of these people were made by the present Administration,

I should view with much suspicion the appointment of trade unionists or party members reaching retirement age, simply to give a general secretary a nice job. There must be no political content in such appointments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that his advice is that there will be no taint of political jobbery in appointing anyone.

11 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said he would only speak for a couple of minutes and went on for 25. I too will not speak for long.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Lewis: Let me get a couple of sentences out. The hon. Member talked about political patronage. I have raised this issue on other Amendments and am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not raise it previously. I have in mind—

Sir D. Glover: It is unfair for the hon. Member to say that I did not raise it. I tried to, but the Government moved the Closure.

Mr. Lewis: One thing that I cannot be accused of is failing to give way. I always give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. When the hon. Gentleman says that he only intends to make a brief speech, would it not be of great assistance to other hon. Members who desire to speak to know what he means so that we can consider—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis: I thought that it would not be a point of order too. I was saying that I wished that the hon. Gentleman had raised this previously. I was referring particularly to those dismal, dark, dreary days when the Tories were in power. They did exactly what I am


complaining of now. We had as Chairman of the I.T.A. the noble Lord the "Radio Doctor".—[An HON. MEMBER: "Lord Hill."]—Yes, but he is better known as the "Radio Doctor". He was appointed by a Tory Government. Being an ex-Tory Minister, I suppose that he was non-political. This Government made the same mistake as the Tories, and then did some switching. Lord Hill went from the I.T.A. to the B.B.C. and, to find a job for an ex-Chief Whip, Lord Aylestone took over from Lord Hill. My only regret is that there was not a little more political patronage, because recently there was a switch in Chief Whip—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help me by saying how he is relating his remarks to the Amendment?

Mr. Lewis: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Gentlemen opposite will keep quiet for a few moments. The Amendment is to leave out Clause 6(4) which as it stands would give power to the Minister to appoint an ex-Chief Whip to the board, or as chairman. The hon. Member went through a long list of political patronage and said that he would not like this to happen in the future. I explained that it had happened in the past both under a Tory Government and, I regret to say, under this Government. If the subsection is omitted, the ex-Chief Whip may not get the appointment which I should like him to get. I am supporting the hon. Gentleman; I should not like the ex-Chief Whip to be given political patronage, and that is one reason why the subsection should be left out.
If the subsection is left out, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk says, we may get away from political patronage. If it remains in the Bill, it will be open to the Minister to appoint as chairman of the board an ex-Chief Whip, an ex-Minister or a Tory ex-Minister.

Mr. George Wallace: Mr. George Wallace (Norwich, North): rose—

Mr. Lewis: The Chairman of the Race Relations Board is the ex-Member for a Liberal constituency—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: If there is to be political patronage, I hope that it will not extend to the Liberal Party. It is bad enough having ex-Ministers, either Tory or Labour, but it is even worse that the former Member for Torrington, Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, should be appointed Chairman of the Race Relations Board, at 8 guineas a day, with tax-free expenses.

Mr. Clegg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the Horserace Betting Levy Board?

Mr. Lewis: I wish the hon. Gentleman opposite would not read my notes and make my points before I reach them. The Horserace Betting Levy Board must take its place behind the rails until the horse is ready to start. I have another example which comes before that, and that is the Chairman of the National Coal Board, who, I think, has not all the qualifications mentioned in the subsection. He was appointed by the previous Tory Government. This is a man who claims that he would make a better Prime Minister than the one we have.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order. With the greatest respect to you, Sir, and to the House, I seem to remember hearing this speech in many previous debates—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will endeavour to keep the hon. Gentleman to the point.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend might be nominated for the job. If he gets it he will deserve it; he will know how to go about it.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the remark made by my hon. Friend—and I put that in quotes—is an outrageous attack on an individual, who probably has not had so much to say in this debate, but who did his work in Committee. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Lewis: I will repeat that my hon. Friend may be one of those who might have this particular job. He might be considered for it. If he does not want that job, I will withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman really is getting out of order. He is not relating his remarks to the Amendments.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry. If one looks at the Clause it is suggested what we should leave out. I am saying that my hon. Friend could be categorised among those. I do not know which particular one, but there are plenty there. He has industrial experience, professional experience and much other experience, so he could be one of those who could be so qualified. If he wants me to withdraw, I will certainly withdraw. My hon. Friend cannot say that I have discussed this particular point because I have not discussed the chairmanship of this board at any time. If he does not want to listen to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss his hon. Friend. He must discuss the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I am discussing the Amendment. Again I refer to the fact that one of the persons qualified in this Clause for this chairmanship, in my opinion, could be any Member of Parliament. So if my hon. Friend does not want it, I will take it myself. I could myself be qualified. Hence if it upset him, I withdraw completely and say that I should have the job. But the facts are that I have not taken part in this debate on this matter, and I had no intention of doing so until the hon. Gentleman spoke.
Then there is the question of Lord Robens. Lord Robens could, of course, qualify according to this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned political patronage and political appointments. I am following on what was said by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Robens. The hon. Member for Ormskirk attacked this side of the House. He singled out the Postmaster-General. He had doubts about his veracity in dealing with this matter. The facts are that Lord Robens was appointed by a Conservative Prime Minister, so that the Conservatives are not backward in coming forward in this sort of matter.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is being grossly unfair about my speech. I said to the right hon. Gentleman that he

might be dealing with the matter for a short, limited time, and that it was much more likely to be a Tory Government dealing with the matter. I said, further, that in my view it was essential one should remove all political taint from any of these appointments.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman never took the trouble to explain to persons who might not be present in this debate, but who might read in HANSARD or elsewhere that in fact this has been happening for some long time by parties of both political persuasions. Not only do they appoint what one might term their own—I think the expression was jobs for the boys—but they appoint their so-called political enemies, and even the absent Liberals.
One need not necessarily be qualified in the terms as set out in the Clause. One has in effect to be a good political personage, somebody who is persona grata with the ruling party of the day and who can be a good yes-man. He or she can be fairly assured of receiving one of these patronage jobs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment by the Minister is to delete such a consideration.

Sir Charles Taylor: The hon. Member is surely aware that the great American firm of consultants, McKinsey, were called in by the Post Office. Would it not be a good idea to ask the Postmaster-General what McKinsey recommended about these political appointments?

Mr. Lewis: I was dealing with the question of patronage and political appointments. The Postmaster-General's Amendment is to delete the Clause. The facts are that if the Clause is not deleted, political patronage can take place, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk has said.
11.15 p.m.
Dealing with the question of the American firm of consultants, it is true that the firm of McKinsey is examining the B.B.C. at the moment. Under this Clause, I should not like to see an American chairman of the B.B.C. We have too many Americans taking over the control of our industries. There are plenty of British subjects who could fill


the position adequately under the Clause, and, equally, there are other people who could examine the B.B.C.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing his argument to the Question before the House, which is whether these words should be deleted.

Mr. Lewis: I am explaining that I am not sure that they should be deleted. At the moment, the Clause specifies the sort of person who may be chairman of the new board. I am toying with the idea that perhaps I am against the suggestion of the Postmaster-General about leaving out the Clause. I am thinking that I should speak in favour of leaving it in, because the Clause specifies the various types of people and their qualifications—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to argue both ways. I cannot believe that what he is saying can be relevant under Standing Orders.

Mr. Lewis: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the point that the hon. Gentleman is not being relevant is seeking at the same time to argue both ways.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, I am not arguing both ways. I am putting the case for and the case against in order to get clear in my mind which is the best way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may quote to you the subsection in question. It says:
The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall be appointed"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is well aware of what the subsection says. The Question before the House—and this is the proposition which the Chair must maintain—is that these words should be deleted. The hon. Gentleman must speak to that proposition.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am putting forward reasons why

they should not be deleted and why I feel that I should oppose the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman has made up his mind. A moment ago he was arguing both propositions.

Mr. Lewis: It is not the first time that that has been done. I have heard both Front Benches do it. No doubt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have heard Ministers putting both sides of a question when dealing with a debate, and saying, "The hon. Member for so and so made certain points, and I will deal with those points and put the arguments against them." It is by no means uncommon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not argue with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman appeared to make his position quite clear in the earlier part of his speech, and then he sought to depart from it. I hope that he will address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Lewis: That may or may not be true. It is not the first time that has been done, by any means.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify that Ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot debate my Ruling.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to clarify the Ruling that you have just given? Are you saying to the House that it is out of order for an hon. Member in one speech to develop two contradictory arguments and, at the end of his speech, either to come to no conclusion or to come to a particular conclusion which includes one of the arguments that he has advanced?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made the point that this was not relevant to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you will look at HANSARD tomorrow, because you will find that you definitely told me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is seeking to debate the Ruling of the Chair. He cannot do that.

Mr. Lewis: I am raising a point of order. Are you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, telling me that I am not allowed to put the pros and cons of an argument and then explain to hon. Members why I come down on one side or the other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will proceed.

Mr. Lewis: I am raising a point of order. I want this clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will indicate when the hon. Member gets out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I will leave the Chamber and appeal to Mr. Speaker, because I am being stopped from making a speech which other hon. Members and Ministers can and do make, namely, putting both sides of the argument. I now leave the Chamber.

Hon. Members: Come back.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. Might I suggest that some of the confusion has arisen because we are taking Amendment No. 15 with this Amendment. If Amendment No. 15 stands, the first four lines of the Clause which the Minister is seeking to leave out will remain. Therefore, this is slightly complicating. Although I appreciate the reason for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the separate Amendment moved by the Minister, the moment one starts leaving in the first four lines it becomes confusing. I wonder whether, by drawing that point to your attention, it might help.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Lewis rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member wishes to continue his speech I will be glad to give him the Floor. If not, I will have to call another hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: I will again try to put the pros and cons. Incidentally, when I spoke on a previous Amendment about whether it should be two or four part time members on the board, I debated whether I

was for two or four or in between. I put both sides of the discussion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot debate an Amendment that the House has already decided.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that. On this Amendment I am explaining to the House that there is some doubt in my mind, and there must be doubt in the minds of hon. Members opposite, whether we should support the Amendment or leave the Clause as it is. Hence, I am putting the argument for and against leaving the Clause in or accepting the Postmaster-General's Amendment. Unless I can do that I cannot make up my mind as to which way I should decide.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Member is now seeking to do is perfectly in order. I hope that he will proceed to the Amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. Is this the rest of his last speech or a fresh speech putting a fresh point of view?

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me a little excited, but it is not my desired intention to get excited, although I apologise to Mr. Deputy Speaker for losing my temper a little while ago. I said to the hon. Member for Ormskirk, who has now left the Chamber, that I thought there was some substance in his approach as to why the Clause should be left in the Bill. It does to some extent limit the extent to which, among other things, political patronage may or may not be exercised. I was going on to explain how this had been done by a number of Governments, of both political persuasions, in various respects. I had got to the point of referring to the Chairman of the National Coal Board who had received political patronage, and I was going on to show how, if the chairmanship of this board happened to be a more lucrative one, Lord Robens might be the chairman of it. I was then interrupted by the hon. Gentleman who raised the question of Lord Wigg and the Horse-race Betting Levy Board.
It may be asked what that Board has to do with the Amendment which seeks to leave out subsection (4) which states that the Chairman shall have shown


capacity in a number of matters. I shall not go into them in any great detail, but they include financial matters, politics, economics, and professional and other activities. It may be that somehow or other Lord Wigg will qualify for this job. At the moment his job is worth about £8,000 a year. If the chairmanship of this new board comes in at £20,000 a year, it may be that Lord Wigg will claim that he has the administrative ability and the political qualifications for the job.
I am speaking in favour of Lord Wigg, because I do not think that he and others like him have been fairly dealt with. Lord Wigg has given honourable service. He was given a job—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the proposition before the House, which is whether these words should be maintained or deleted.

Mr. Lewis: I am at the moment suggesting, before I have made up my mind completely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not taking the Amendment seriously.

Mr. Lewis: It is amazing how some people in this House can read my mind and tell me what I am thinking. I am thinking that as the Clause stands it gives a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends a qualification and an entitlement to be selected for this chairmanship. If the Clause remains unaltered many of those who have been hard done by over the last few years by being given jobs in which they earn between £6,000 and £10,000 a year might qualify for a £20,000 job. I am toying with the idea that it is better to leave this provision in than to delete it, because whilst this provision is in the Bill it provides those people with a chance of being considered for this new job.

Mr. Hay: In coming to this rather difficult decision, as he clearly is, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if he accepts the Amendment none of the considerations to which he has referred would apply. If, for example, there was a problem about whether the noble lord, Lord Wigg, would qualify, under the

words proposed to be deleted that problem would disappear, because anybody, whatever his qualifications, however minimal they be, could be appointed.
The hon. Gentleman talked about foreign nationals. Under the subsection a foreign national could be appointed to this board. There is no reference to the person appointed being of British nationality. Would the hon. Gentleman care to pursue that?

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I started to go through the list of those who would be so qualified under the Clause if it were not amended, and I had not by then reached the stage of the alternative, which is to delete the Clause and then come to the points mentioned by the hon. Member.
As there is no specified qualification—this is the point on which I am in doubt—laid down in the Bill, it might well be, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) said, that one could get an American appointed.

Mr. Clegg: Or de Gaulle.

Mr. Lewis: Whether that would be satisfactory I do not know. But it might be as well to consider whether this is the Minister's intention. There could be a number of alternatives. This is the problem with which we are confronted: will the deletion make it easier or more difficult for the Postmaster-General to make up his mind about the right person for the appointment?

Mr. Speed: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is immaterial whether the Clause is in or out? The Clause is a Freudian slip and a standard brief for appointment to all the things that we have been discussing. Whether it is in or out will not affect the matter one way or other.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know. This was not the point that the Minister put when he moved the deletion. I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), but I am not sure that he would be as well briefed as the Postmaster-General. If the Postmaster-General can assure me that that is the situation I shall be happy to accept that the hon. Member for Meriden is correct, but that is not the position at the moment.
I rose for a few minutes to make a few remarks, but I have been interrupted rather more than I would have wished, and even at this moment I am not clear about it, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to clarify some of the points that I have put to him.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman said just now about the two sides of the argument is not coloured by the fact that he has misinterpreted the Clause. He has been talking about the qualifications of these persons, whether they have wide experience or have shown capacity for the subject. But the Clause does not say that. It says that it should appear to the Minister that that is so. The hon. Gentleman has been talking as though they have to have these qualifications. Clearly, they have not; they have to appear to have them, according to the Minister, which is a different matter.

Captain Orr: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was churlish to the Minister, and I want to express a corrective note. Although the Minister was uncharacteristically high-handed and non-forthcoming on the previous Amendment and his general treatment of the Committee was not in accordance with what we expect from him, none the less on this occasion he has gone a long way to meet the arguments which some of us put in Committee. In that respect, I am grateful to him.
The Minister was good enough to quote something that I said in Committee as his reason for the deletion of the Clause. He undertook during the course of the Committee stage to look again at the whole question of the qualifications for the members of the board. He has done so, and he has removed the qualifications entirely.
I think it is true that taking this form of words and the removal of the qualifications entirely has not made a great deal of difference, but what has emerged from the debate resulting from the Minister's proposition and particularly from the cogent and lucid exposition of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is that there is a need for something else to be inserted. There needs to be some form of words which disqualify certain persons from membership

of this board. This is something which perhaps the Postmaster-General will look at between now and a later stage of the Bill. He was good enough to look at it before, but it was never apparent—perhaps because we did not look at it closely enough in Committee—that these words were not completely exclusive.
The hon. Member for West Ham. North quite properly raised the question whether or not the Minister now had an absolute discretion—which he has; the removal of this subsection will give the Minister an absolute discretion. But there are certain things which Parliament should tell a future Minister he should have in mind when appointing persons and that there are certain types of person whom he should not appoint to the new board. Whether or not foreign nationals would come into it I do not know; but this is worthy of consideration.
One can think of a great many categories, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends could expand upon this. One case that springs to mind immediately is this. What would be the position of a director of a firm supplying the Post Office—say, the director of a company which has very large contracts for the supply of Post Office telephone exchange equipment? Would such a person be eligible for part-time or full-time membership of this board? It would be almost unthinkable that any responsible Minister would appoint anyone of that sort who was in a contractual relationship with the Post Office. But could we not write something into the legislation?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. and gallant Friend will find in Schedule 1, paragraph 3, that this point of connection with businesses supplying the Post Office is fully dealt with. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is on a good point in relation to other people, but this particular point, I think, is covered in that Schedule.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I had not studied Schedule 1. paragraph 3. Rather than waste the time of the House, I will take my hon. Friend's word for it that it is covered.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), surely relates largely to financial interests rather than to qualifications.


Is that not the case? The reference that my hon. and gallant Friend needs is Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2).

Captain Orr: Yes. It states:
A member of the Post Office who is in any way directly or indirectly interested …

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. This relates to contracts and is not relevant to the Amendment before the House.

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because from a quick glance at that provision that is precisely the conclusion that I had come to.
This brings me back to the argument that I was addressing to the Postmaster-General, which is that it would still presumably be possible, with the removal of this subsection, for a Postmaster-General to appoint to the new Post Office board someone who was a director of a company which had a contractual relationship or a proposed contractual relationship with the Post Office.
One can think of many other examples of people whom it may be desirable to have on the board. It may well be undesirable, however, to have persons on it connected with other boards which might well be suppliers or customers of the Post Office. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say that he will look at this again even further than he has done. He is right in eliminating the positive qualifications but there may be negative ones. If he will agree to look again at this matter we might be able to make a little progress.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member keeps asking my right hon. Friend to look at this point and that. We debated this matter at length in Committee and my right hon. Friend and I have given due credit to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the case they put forward there. We looked at it again and arrived at a conclusion. We thought that we had given an accommodation to the Opposition but now it appears that we have not even done that.

Captain Orr: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I chided my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because I

thought he was being a little churlish about this. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman considered this matter carefully in the light of what we said in Committee and brought forward this proposal as a result. All I am saying as a result of this debate is that it appears that perhaps the matter should be looked at again, not on the point of qualifications, on which we have been met, but on the need perhaps for making certain exclusions. That is something we did not even consider in Committee. Perhaps we should have done.

Mr. Stonehouse: But this point was considered by my hon. Friend and I in considering the deletion of subsection (4) and we decided that it would be better to leave it within the discretion of that Minister of the day rather than attempt to write into another subsection the provisions the hon. Gentleman has been describing as being required. We believed that the deletion of subsection (4) would meet the point entirely.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying he has considered this. Did he consider the example I have given of persons with contractual relations?

Mr. Stonehouse: indicated assent.

Captain Orr: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is right. I suppose that Parliament would have an ultimate sanction in that it could question the Minister about his appointments at the time they were made. But that is the only sanction which Parliament would have if a Minister brushed aside a Parliamentary Question on the matter. It is almost inconceivable that a responsible Minister would behave in this way, but there is something to be said for an "exclusion" subsection. The Minister has gone a long way to give us what we asked for, and I at least am content.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Onslow: The debate has not made it any easier for me to make up my mind. The careful rehearsal of the issues on both sides by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is partly the reason for my confusion. I also know how anxious my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is to see verbal sludge washed down the Parliamentary plug-hole, and the words which he has


played an important part in persuading the Minister to delete are a considerable piece of sludge. There is another beauty which the Minister will seek to put in later. But, keen though my hon. Friend is to campaign against the pollution of the English language, and avidly though I look forward to his introduction of a Clean Speech Bill, I am still not happy about the effect of the total deletion of these particular words.
They must originally have been inserted for a purpose. A great deal of money has been spent printing the Bill, and laundry lists and such things are not included by accident. So a suspicious mind must conclude that something has happened between Committee and Report that conflicts with that purpose. A possible explanation is that it was discovered that the words would disquality someone for whom it was urgently necessary to find a job. Particularly when I read that the person concerned should not only have had "wide experience" but also have "shown capacity" to the Postmaster-General in certain stipulated areas of human endeavour, it occurred to me that, after the events of the past few days, one who could be disqualified from employment on the board was the Prime Minister himself. Although there are some things here of which he has had experience, the insistence on capacity in "professional or financial matters" would surely exclude him. The second possiblity was that there might have been an urgent necessity to find a job for the ex-Government Chief Whip and present Minister of Public things. The last part of the stipulation—"organisation of workers"—would exclude him.
But the English language is such a dangerous trap: on a fifth reading of this bit of the Bill I found that I had been reading "and" for "or" in the penultimate line. On that basis, and on rereading the provision a sixth time, I concluded that my apprehensions had been unfounded. Thus, although I am not content to leave a matter of this importance to the discretion of any Minister—I share the anxieties of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about this—I suppose we can allow the Bill to be purged to some extent of its linguistic nastiness by the removal of these words. But if the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely

seeking an alternative form of words, I hope that between now and the Measure reaching another place he will consider inserting after
The chairman and other members of the Post Office shall …
the phrase, "be worthy of their hire."

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Postmaster-General is so engaging that at first I was persuaded by his argument. However, the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) gave me time for peaceful meditation and, in the course of my reflection on the Amendment, I became disturbed by its implications. I wondered what was the motive of the right hon. Gentleman and began to puzzle whether he had taken advantage of the zeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the English language. Had the right hon. Gentleman taken the opportunity to slip in an Amendment in the hope of getting it approved quickly, I wondered?
If accepted, the Amendment will give the Postmaster-General much more power of patronage than he would have with the subsection in the Bill. Why is the form of words which apply to other public corporations being departed from in the case of the Post Office? There may be good reasons, but I should like to hear them.
The Amendment will also give the right hon. Gentleman much greater flexibility in deciding on the appointments he makes to the board. For example, I note that the Liberal Bench is empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I apologise to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), whom I always regard as a very special Liberal. Perhaps the rest of his colleagues are, even now, queuing up at the Post Office headquarters in the hope of being nominated to the new board.
Why has the Postmaster-General departed from the form of words governing other public corporations in other Statutes? I hope that he will develop his argument about his attitude to this matter. For example, he said that while he wished to delete the curious qualifications for membership of the board as stated in the subsection, he wished it to be clear that his attitude towards the workers remained the same. I should like him to say a little more about that.


If this is to disappear from the Bill, what is the good of the Postmaster-General saying that he has a certain attitude? He will not be there very long.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member said that my right hon. Friend might not be here very long. That is a matter of opinion. The hon Member has a right to his opinion but others have a right to theirs. I should say that my right hon. Friend will be here for quite a long time yet.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I was in no way disputing that the Postmaster-General has a right to his opinion and we like to hear his opinions. I merely asked that he should develop the argument a little further and explain the significance of his attitude. In the long perspective of history the tenure of office of Postmasters-General is not of enormous length. Unless we can hear more about this provision, I do not feel inclined to support the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg: This has been an interesting and serious debate and we have heard finely balanced arguments from both sides of the House. My first reaction was to welcome the Amendment because it seemed to make more of an honest woman of the Bill. As it stood the Clause seemed very hypocritical because it seemed on the surface to suggest that the power of the Minister to appoint the chairman or a member of the board was limited in some way, but the provision was so widely drawn that any limitation of that power was absolutely meaningless. In saying to the House today, "What I want is a quite unrestricted power to appoint whom I wish", the Minister was making a much more honest approach.
This has led the House to consider points made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). It is clear from the right hon. Gentleman's approach that Parliament is giving him unrestricted power. We are worried about the immense power of patronage involved.

Mr. Ridley: Another curious thing is that the Minister is not able to appoint hon. Members of this House, but is allowed to appoint noble Lords to the board. Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that that contains an element of discrimination?

Mr. Clegg: My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has much greater knowledge of the Bill than I have. I understand that if an hon. Member were appointed he would have to resign his membership of this House, but a member of another place could be appointed and still take part in debates there. That would be a terrible situation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: This would no longer be an office of profit under the Crown.

Mr. Clegg: It might be a good thing to have the head of the Post Office in this House as a Member.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: He is now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) relates his remarks to the Amendment. The proposition is whether these words should be deleted or not.

Mr. Clegg: I was trying to explain the deep feeling about the power of patronage which to some extent, although perhaps in form more than anything else, would be wider if the Amendment were accepted. I thought that my hon. Friend was trying to help me to develop my argument.

Mr. Speed: Schedule 1 says:
Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 … shall, in its application to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, be amended by inserting, at the appropriate point in alphabetical order, the words 'The Post Office'.
I realise that we have not got to Schedule 1 yet, but I thought it might help my hon. Friend if I pointed that out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Clegg.

Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). It underlines the point which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure what point it underlined, but the lion. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) certainly did not address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg: I thought that it was a great help, because it showed us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment if he wishes to continue speaking.

12 m.

Mr. Clegg: Perhaps I had better return to my main argument. I do not want to be distracted.
The argument of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) showed quite clearly his concern about the way in which the power of patronage was to be exercised. His main argument was concerned with the power of patronage when it is exercised towards politicians. I think that this is the deep, underlying concern of the House. Whether it accepts the Amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the general principle, but whether these words should be deleted from the Clause. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Clegg: With the greatest respect, I think that the argument I was putting forward was germane, because there is a difference between the powers the Minister can exercise if the Clause is deleted and those he can exercise if it stays in. The original Clause gave us a Freudian glimpse into what was in his mind, which was clearly that politicians could be appointed to jobs on the board, including that of chairman. Now the Minister has said that he wants an unfettered discretion, and in so far as I said earlier that that attitude is less hypocritical than that originally shown in the Bill, I support the Amendment.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) sparked off doubts in my mind about the Amendment which has been growing as the debate has proceeded. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about political appointments, and if we accept the Amendment, or even the Amendment of my lion. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), political appointments as such will not be written into the Bill. But as politicians we must be a little careful about this. We do not want to arrive at the stage where politicians are

debarred from all appointments to public service on various boards. A great deal of mealy-mouthed nonsense can be talked.
We are seeking the best possible people to serve on the board, bearing in mind the great responsibilities they will have. If we accept the Amendment the Minister will be left with wide and unfettered powers to appoint whom he will. Looking at the appointments to similar organisations over the years, one can only assume that from time to time there will be a combination of industrialists, trade unionists and politicians and all the rest, some of whom will no doubt do a good job, while others perhaps will not do such a good job. Will it make much difference if we leave the subsection in? It is drawn so wide that even members of the present Government will no doubt fall into one or other of the categories. It would be very difficult to find any person in the country who would not.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The subsection says that they shall not only have wide experience but have shown capacity. How can my hon. Friend possibly maintain that hon. Members opposite have shown capacity in their chosen trade?

Mr. Speed: I remind my hon. Friend—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) talked about precedents. I remind him that a distinguished member of the Tory Party, and also a Member of this House, Sir Victor Raikes, was for many years a member of the commercial organisation, a quasi-Government organisation—I refer to the Hops Board—in view of his special knowledge of the products. He was appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. It was an office of profit under the Crown because he was paid £500 a year, having regard to his special knowledge, and he was not a bibulous character.

Mr. Speed: I hope he was a working director and no doubt he sampled the hops from time to time. Going back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was saying, the Bill does say:
wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in matters concerning",


and it also says
appearing to the Minister".
There were references at the weekend to Ministers going on, but even Ministers can be misled occasionally about that aspect of contemporary political life. We are not judging these things in political terms, and any appointment must be made at a particular moment—

Mr. Onslow: The real objection is to the words "to the Minister". The Minister will have much power over the future of his own colleagues.

Mr. Speed: That could be a point and I cannot see that there will be a difference whether the subsection is in or the Minister's Amendment is made and the subsection is out.

Mr. Philip Holland: Is not the distinction that if the words are in, the Minister will at least have to justify his appointments against the criteria, however vague?

Mr. Speed: My hon. Friend was anticipating my next remark. If the criteria are printed, at least we can measure the effectiveness of the yardstick of appointments against a political criteria. All will know that a criteria is being applied and there may be occasions when a former politician would be an admirable member of the board and it is nonsense to pretend that politicians or bankers or anybody else should be excluded if they happened to do a good job on the board.
What worries me much more is patronage of the Minister, not this Minister in particular, but Ministers of all political parties, because I have been making investigations and there is no doubt that Ministers in every Department appoint literally thousands of people to thousands of boards, councils and committees all over the country. This has gone on over the years under all Governments.
There is an argument for incorporating in the Bill the sort of criteria and qualities the Minister is to look for when he chooses these members of the board, be they full time or part time. For all these reasons, including the parlous usage argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I think the

Amendment will be beneficial. The Assistant Postmaster-General has argued that because this subsection was accepted by the Committee it should be accepted by the House.
I was not a member of the Committee. In discussing Bills on Report those of us who have not been on the Committee sometimes feel like strangers looking in through the window. We cannot follow some of the details, which have no doubt been debated continuously in Committee. On the arguments so far advanced I cannot bring myself to support either the Amendment of the Minister or that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Waddington: I never used to be a suspicious person, but having been a Member of this House for only a very few months I have learned to be suspicious. Like many of my hon. Friends I am suspicious when a Minister so readily makes what, on the face of it, is a concession. I want to ask a simple question. What does the Minister think would be the practical result of the acceptance of this Amendment? This puzzles me.

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Member was a member of the Committee. Is he speaking against the recommendation of my right hon. Friend, in view of what happened in Committee?

Mr. Waddington: I am hoping that when the Minister replies to the debate he will explain in rather plainer words than he has so far used, precisely what will be the legal effect of the deletion of the words at the end of subsection (4). A number of hon. Members seemed to have assumed that if it stands then only those who have wide experience in the industrial, commercial, professional or financial sphere will be able to be appointed to the board. It is not so. The crucial words are:
… from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience …
Perhaps later the Postmaster-General will find it helpful to call for one of the law officers to help on this.
I seem to remember, from my student days, that there was a famous case called Liversidge and Anderson. This Clause seems to allow the Minister to appoint whoever he likes, and there is no fetter on his discretion, even as the Clause


stands. If the Minister does not agree, perhaps he would explain how he considers that the appointment can be challenged?
Can it be challenged in the courts on the ground that the person appointed was not a person with wide experience of industrial matters? After an appointment has been made, can Members of this House challenge the appointment and have it rescinded on the ground that the person did not have a wide experience of industrial or commercial matters? I think not. It seems that the only way in which the Minister's Amendment could be commended to the House would be on the basis that he would be deleting from the Bill a mass of useless verbiage, of which there is far too much in the Bill.
I was a member of the Committee, and I remember that at the end of Committee

stage I and my hon. Friends were complimented because we had not gone into all the minutiae of the Bill. One hon. Member opposite said that we could have extended the Committee stage by months if we had dealt with various points of the Schedule. It should not be held against me tonight that we helped the Government in Committee. The Postmaster-General owes it to the House to explain in a little more detail what he thinks will be achieved if these words are deleted.

Mr. Joseph Harper: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 150.

Division No. 193.]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Albu, Austen
Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles


Alldritt, Walter
Finch, Harold
Luard, Evan


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Macdonald, A. H.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Barnett, Joel
Fowler, Gerry
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Binns, John
Gregory, Arnold
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Booth, Albert
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Boston, Terence
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (HUddersfield, E.)


Boyden, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Manuel, Archie


Bradley, Tom
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Brooks, Edwin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Haseldine, Norman
Mayhew, Christopher


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Mendelson, John


Coe, Denis
Henig, Stanley
Mikardo, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Horner, John
Millan, Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Crawshaw, Richard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howie, W.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Molloy, William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Dell, Edmund
Hynd, John
Murray, Albert


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Newens, Stan


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Dickens, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oakeg, Gordon


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric


Driberg, Tom
Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Kenyon, Clifford
Oram, Albert E.


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Orme, Stanley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Oswald, Thomas


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lawson, George
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Page, Derek (King's[...]nn)


Ellis, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Paget, R. T.


English, Michael
Lee, John (Reading)
Palmet, Arthur


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Park, Trevor




Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Silverman, Julius
White, Mrs. Eirene


Price, William (Rugby)
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Probert, Arthur
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rees, Merlyn
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Richard, Ivor
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Taverne, Dick
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. F'c'as)
Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Roebuck, Roy
Varley, Eric G.
Woof, Robert


Rose, Paul
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Rowlands, E.
Wallace, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Awdry, Daniel
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Balniel, Lord
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Batsford, Brian
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Holland, Philip
Peyton, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, John
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Braine, Bernard
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ridsdale, Julian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lambton, Viscount
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Silvester, Frederick


Clegg, Walter
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Cordle, John
Lubbock, Eric
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Summers, Sir Spencer


d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tapsell, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Donnelly, Desmond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wiggin, A. W.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)



Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Jasper More and


Gresham Cooke, R.
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Grieve, Percy

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Clause 7

POWERS OF THE POST OFFICE

Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 6, line 28,

leave out from 'provide' to 'and' in line 29 and insert 'data processing services'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment, we can discuss Amendment No. 19, in line 29, leave out 'or relate to their


use', and Amendment No. 117, in page 65, line 45, at end insert:
(3) Any reference in this Part of this Act to data processing shall be construed as including a reference to the storage and retrieval of information.

Mr. Stonehouse: The House will remember that when we discussed the last Amendment I indicated that I had been persuaded by the observations of hon. Gentlemen in Committee, who put a point of view to me which I undertook to consider. Similarly on this issue, I have been persuaded by the observations of hon. Gentlemen who contributed to the discussion on 12th December. Members of the Committee will remember that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) moved an Amendment on that day and was supported by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington).
Those hon. Members suggested that Clause 7(1)(c) was too wide and that some Amendment was required to the Clause. I have considered the position, the original wording was designed with the intention of catching all the activities of the National Data Processing Service, but, as I indicated to the Committee, it was not intended to go beyond that.
I believe that the words I am now proposing to the House achieve the same objective, but with greater clarity, and is an improvement to the Bill. As I indicated, I am responding to the observations made in Committee, for which I am most grateful to the hon. Gentlemen to whom I have referred.

Mr. Mawby: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his concern and the way in which, clearly, he has studied what was said in Committee. Obviously, he has sought to narrow the wording to make certain that it does not go outside the data processing services.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he had no intention of going any further than giving permission for the data processing services to continue in operation. Unfortunately, the wording which he proposes is capable of all sorts of interpretations. In the future, the majority of people will say not what the Minister assured the House but what the Act says, and the difficulty lies in the words

"data processing services." It means to the right hon. Gentleman and to myself what we think it means, but to others outside it might have a much wider interpretation.
12.30 a.m.
We have a computer industry in which all sorts of jargon is used. The majority of that jargon has not yet been interpreted and decided by the courts. In the absence of the Attorney-General, I should say that, whatever jargon the computer industry may use, the actual words used could mean that a court of law would rule that a Press cutting agency, Scotland Yard or the department of a bank which issued bank statements would qualify as data processing services. I do not suggest that the Post Office has any intention of entering into any of these areas. Nevertheless, the words could be interpreted as such, and data processing could take us a long way.
When I notice that Amendment No. 117 is being discussed with this matter, it causes me more concern. Amendment No. 117, which affects Clause 84, seeks to insert:
(3) Any reference in this Part of this Act to data processing shall be construed as including a reference to the storage and retrieval of information.
It is obvious that that form of words will be necessary, because a data processing service must carry out the storage and retrieval of information. The difficulty, in my opinion—again in the absence of any Law Officer of the Crown—is that the courts are likely to interpret that definition much wider than we would define it for the purposes of the Bill. When we start thinking about storage and retrieval of information, we realise that it is a very comprehensive statement. It could include office equipment, such a filing cabinets, dictating machines, tape recorders, and cupboards, not to mention libraries, warehouses, and even the time-honoured abacus. These are all capable of being interpreted by the courts as being methods of storage and retrieval of information.
I do not want to appear churlish to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that he has seriously considered the points that we made in Committee. He has brought in Amendments which, in his opinion and that of his Department, are the minimum necessary to make certain


that the data processing service should continue. All I am saying is that the courts could interpret this more widely than he or I would. Therefore, it is important that we should ask whether there is some way in which we could narrow the definition still further so that the Bill will be more in line with what the House seeks to do.

Mr. Hay: I rise briefly to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby).
The Postmaster-General has made an honest and genuine attempt to put right the defect in the Clause, but I entirely agreed with what my hon. Friend said concerning the rather limiting effect of the words now proposed to be used. It seems to me that there might be trouble if, at some time in the future, the Post Office Corporation decided to go into some form of activity which it could describe as data processing, but which is clearly not in the mind of the Government or the House at the moment.
I do not want to be too legalistic about the difficulty that I see in the Amendment No. 117, but it does not describe what data processing is. It merely says what the expression "data processing" shall include. If the draftsman could devise a definition of exactly what is meant by data processing rather than saying it has to be construed as including a reference to the storage and retrieval of information, I should feel much happier.
Clearly what the Post Office is concerned with is something in the electronic field involving the transmission of information, the collection of information at some central point, and its distribution to other places. It is obviously in mind that computers will be used, either centrally or at different points. Although it is too late now to try to redraft the proposed Amendment, there will be an opportunity in another place for these words to be looked at again, and I simply put the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that in these circumstances he might consider asking the draftsman to include a reference to "electronic". I think that that is what the Government have in mind for the ambit of the data processing service.

Captain Orr: I think my hon. Friend will agree that it will have to be even

more limited than simply "electronic", because as they stand the words "storage and retrieval" would include such things as tape recorders.

Mr. Hay: I was trying to think not just of the definition in Amendment No. 117, but of the whole problem which is here exposed, that of paragraph (c) and its related definition in Clause 84.
I have put forward my suggestion with the intention of being helpful, because in some years from now the meaning of the words could well be very much wider than we intend here, and certainly much wider than the Government, even looking to the future, would imagine is necessary. We want to find a proper definition. The right hon. Gentleman has done stage one of the redraft. I hope that he will not weary of well doing, but will go further and look at this again in another place.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I think that the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) for drawing attention to this matter because, to use my hon. Friend's words in Committee, there was no doubt that the words in the Bill were
far too wide and capable of a very broad interpretation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) said in Committee, they were
dramatically far reaching".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th December, 1968 c. 283–4.]
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards meeting our point. He has given us half a loaf, but not a complete roll. It would be churlish not to express our thanks for what we have received, but having done that I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes, and Henley (Mr. Hay), that we should not leave the Clause as it is.
In Committee the right hon. Gentleman reminded us that at present the national data processing service does about 10 per cent. of outside business, and that this proportion is expected to grow. If this service is to mushroom as a nationalised industry, I think that it would be wise to look with great care at the power that it has. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that only matters covered by


the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Act are included in the Amendment and that it goes no further.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to a point covered in a letter by John Gorst in The Times on 28th April. Referring to the definition of data processing, he wrote:
there can be no doubt that a Court of Law would rule that a press cutting agency, Scotland Yard, a telephone answering service, the editorial department of a newspaper or the department of a bank which issued bank statements—all would qualify as data processing services. Under … a future Post Office administration
they
would be entitled to be involved in these activities.
I should be obliged for the right hon. Gentleman's comment on that.
I am most unhappy about Amendment No. 117. The words:
Any reference in this part of this Act to data processing shall be construed as including a reference to the storage and retrieval of in formation
are an unsatisfactory definition. In his letter to The Times Mr. Gorst wrote that
the definition of 'data processing—the storage and retrieval of information'—is so comprehensive that it includes innocent office equipment, such as filing cabinets, dictating machines, tape recorders, and cupboards, not to mention libraries, warehouses and even the time-honoured abacus.
It seems, therefore, that, while the right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us, the drafting of the Amendment is not entirely satisfactory. It would be very useful if the right hon. Gentleman could reply to the points that have been put in the debate before we let is pass.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for the questions which he has put to me.
The hon. Member asked whether the wording in the Bill as amended by the Amendment gives the Post Office greater powers than are set out in the Post Office (Data Processing Service) Act, 1967. Yes, because the Act referred to the provision of services and facilities for the processing of data by computer and under the Bill there is no limitation to data processing by computer, because it opens the opportunity for new and more sophisticated

equipment, if that should be invented, to be used by the National Data Processing Service.

Mr. Stratton Mills: What would the answer to my question be with the Clause as originally drafted?

Mr. Stonehouse: The answer would have been the same because it was the intention in the Bill as originally drafted that there should be no restriction on the National Data Processing Service to provide data processing services in the widest sense.
As to the other point raised, the House must appreciate that this is not a monopoly service. It is a service provided by a section of the Post Office in competition with many other businesses. In these circumstances it would be wrong of the House to shackle the Post Office Corporation in a particular way. This is why we are seeking in this drafting of this subsection, as we were seeking in the original drafting, to give the fullest opportunity to the National Data Processing Service to do a job for its customers, who are obtained in fair competition with other suppliers of such services, without unnecessary restrictions being placed on their activities.

12.45 a.m.

Captain Orr: The Postmaster-General has said that the N.D.P.S. is not a monopoly service and exists in competition. But under the monopoly Clauses of this Bill it would be possible for it to become a monopoly service.

Mr. Stonehouse: No. There is no question that this would become a monopoly service because the facilities of the telecommunications section of the Post Office are available, freely and without any discrimination, to other providers of data processing services. Therefore, at present and in the future, the N.D.P.S. will not be in any privileged position in that respect. It will be competitive.

Mr. Hay: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with the greatest of care. May I direct attention to Clause 24(1)(c) which provides for a monopoly of telecommunications and refers in particular to
signals serving for the impartation (whether as between persons and persons, things and things or persons and things) of any matter


otherwise than in the form of sound or visual images …
If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the data processing service is a service that the Post Office will carry on and that other people may carry on exactly the same kind of service in competition, how does he tie up that statement with the very wide powers that it is proposed to be taken in Clause 24(1)(c)?

Mr. Stonehouse: It ties up very well. What Clause 24(1)(c) refers to is the telecommunications monopoly which the House has agreed should go to the Post Office Corporation as it at present exists in the monopoly of the Postmaster-General. But the telecommunications monopoly will be providing services to a whole range of customers; N.D.P.S. will be one of them, in fact. The National Data Processing Service and the other competitors providing data processing services will have equal access to the telecommunications facilities provided by the Post Office. Any suggestion there may have been in any quarter that the Post Office would discriminate against other data processing services in favour of the National Data Processing Service is completely and utterly wrong. There will be no question of any such discrimination.

Mr. Hay: I am sorry to intervene again, but this is important. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if other people who operate data processing services for hire wish to acquire, for example, the use of land lines from point to point, from the telecommunications monopoly of the Post Office, there will be no discrimination against them and there will be no necessity for them to obtain licences under Clause 27?

Mr. Stonehouse: No, I am not suggesting that at all. It is important that the monopoly, as I have indicated on past occasions, should be protected. The facilities and the hiring of the lines will, of course, be available to any data processing service. It will be able to buy the facilities in the same way as the N.D.P.S. will be buying them from the Post Office. The question of discrimination will not apply.
I was also asked about information retrieval and why we have put down

Amendment No. 117. This is consequential on Amendment No. 18, because the definitions of data processing in the technical glossaries do not explicitly refer to the storage and retrieval of information and I considered it wise, in order to remove any doubt, to include these words in the Bill so that, in future, there would be no doubt about the matter. The importance of information retrieval to data processing must be made quite clear to the House. It is an essential part of such services and that why it is important to put the matter beyond doubt in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 35, at end insert
and shall receive payment for such services at rates to be agreed between the Post Office and the Treasury'.
The Amendment concerns the method of assessing the charges which should be made by the Post Office for the various services it runs mainly for other Government Departments. There is some confusion in the Bill as to how it should be done. In the Post Office Accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor-General says that the basis for making the charges was cost-plus. The services are those like distribution of pensions and family allowances and the collection of water rates for local authorities.
In Committee this policy had apparently been changed and the right hon. Gentleman reacted well to pressure from the Opposition that the services should be charged on a realistic basis and contain an element of profit to the Post Office. He said that the same basis for calculating Post Office profits was to be used—for example, that, when the Department of Health and Social Security asked him to distribute pensions, he would charge cost-plus and also 2 per cent., which would be the element of profit. This is something that on the whole we support.
But some of the services involved the use of the telecommunications side of the Post Office on which the profit element is 8 per cent. on assets. So the formula proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee is not satisfactory. We have devised the Amendment to try to meet the objections. We


want to know how these various charges will be assessed and where the responsibility will lie.
No mean sum is involved. The Post Office receives about £50 million a year from various Government Departments for carrying those services out and there is no way of checking, other than taking the right hon. Gentleman's word, whether this is cost-plus or cost-plus 2 or cost-plus 8. We suspect that it is nowhere near the true recovery.
When the Post Office becomes a nationalised industry, a corporation, with the obligation to act commercially and make a profit, it may well be asked by other Government Departments to carry out services which may or may not be profitable. Under the Bill, it will be in a difficult position. The level of charges can be decided by the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in conjunction with the various Government Departments. This is not satisfactory because so many other Government Departments are represented in the Cabinet while the Post Office is not. Whenever there is a conflict, the Postmaster-General will lose, as the strikes showed, when he wanted to take one course and some of his Cabinet colleagues bullied him into saying, "No." We do not want this to happen in the assessment of these charges, so we have suggested that the Treasury, whose services are rarely conducted by the Post Office, should hold the ring.
What recovery should the Post Office get when other bodies, like local authorities, use its services? We believe that it should be a commercial rate. The Assistant Postmaster-General was quite prophetic in Committee, when he said:
… there are unlikely to be many instances where the amounts to be paid to the Post Office cannot be settled satisfactorily by negotiations between it and the principal concerned … some provision must be made in the Bill to meet the situation … of deadlock being reached in negotiations. Not even an Act of Parliament can compel people to agree; we have found this on the trade union side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th January, 1969; c. 506.]
It is not often that the hon. Gentleman is called a prophet. But a conflict of interest can arise between Government Departments and we suspect that, in the past, the Post Office has come out of it badly, and the social security Ministries have found perhaps too cheap a way of

distributing their payments. This should be tightened up.
The Amendment also covers services in the nature of a social duty but which are nevertheless expensive—telegrams, which cost £2 million, and remote telephone kiosks, for example. If these are to be accepted, their cost should be determined and borne as a subsidy. A nationalised industry should not have to carry these services without their being separated and clearly listed so that we can assess the Corporation's true profitability. The Amendment is meant to be helpful, and to put the Corporation in a clear and unequivocal position.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on a point of principle. We must know what things cost. There are far too many services and activities of Government Departments of which the public and the House do not know the cost. There are subsidies, allowances, and tax deductions, and so on, and it is difficult to get a straight accounting, particularly in the nationalised sector. The Amendment would require the cost to be assessed, charged to the user and, above all publicised, so that we all knew the bill.
Although we are not dealing with Clause 12, the Amendment has a bearing on that provision, which, in stating the charges that may be made, specifically refers to game permits and dog licences—we know why the right hon. Gentleman wishes to include those—although it does not specify the charges made for the general category of services provided by post offices throughout the country.
Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, and cannot pretend to be expert in these matters, I can examine the general services provided by the Post Office as outlined in the Report and Accounts of the Post Office. One service is the administration of broadcasting. One section of the Post Office is sending round vans to check on who has or has not paid the various licence fees. How much is this costing? This cost should be identified—perhaps this service is costing more than it is collecting—and the Amendment would result in it being identified.
Some time ago this House passed legislation which has resulted in men being sent round to suppress pirate radio stations. I regard that as a squalid activity on the part of the Post Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is squalid for young people in various parts of London and elsewhere to be treated in this way. Why should we suppress their free enterprise radio activities?

Mr. Joseph Slater: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "squalid activity". I trust that he will withdraw it, in view of the international obligations which the Post Office has.

Mr. Griffiths: I dislike disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have much admiration, but I will not withdraw it. I said it when the legislation was being passed and I repeat that it was a squalid activity of which the Government should be ashamed. I await the day when free enterprise broadcasting will be restored.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the international obligations of this country should be ignored by the Government?

Mr. Griffiths: I am suggesting no such thing.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) aware that it is unwise for him to talk of international obligations in this matter when these very obligations were ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite for at least two years while they got over a General Election?

Mr. Griffiths: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend has in mind. The hon. Gentleman's comments are not worth answering. In any event, it would be perfectly simple to renegotiate the European Broadcasting Convention, which is what the Government should have done. Instead, they placed a squalid activity on the Post Office.

Mr. Roebuck: Is the hon. Gentleman now speaking authoritatively for the Opposition? Is he making the promise that if the Conservatives are returned to power, they will renegotiate the Convention?

Mr. Griffiths: It is not for me to speak on behalf of the Official Opposition.

Mr. Roebuck: Ah.

Mr. Griffiths: I had the pleasure of proposing at a conference of the Conservative Party that we should have national broadcasting legislation designed to introduce a sensible form of private local broadcasting. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend who speaks on broadcasting matters for the Opposisition accepted that proposal, which is, I understand, part of the policy of the next Government. I feel that I should not be diverted from my theme by these little interventions.

Captain Orr: I am sorry to make another little intervention, but will my hon. Friend address his mind to the question of who is to administer these new services in relation to broadcasting? Will it be the new Corporation or the residual Ministry?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that I can answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I am concerned with the Amendment and what it would achieve. It would achieve the charging and identifying of that charging in respect of Post Office services. One of the services set out in the Accounts is that administration of broadcasting. It would be right, good business practice, and politically more honest than the present situation if we knew precisely what those costs are and if they could be debated. They could be condemned if they were excessive.
Beyond the administration of broadcasting the general agency services of the Post Office are identified as
the management on behalf of the Treasury of National Savings and the conduct of business therein".
That, of course, is an exemplary activity for the Post Office to be engaged in, but what does it cost? The Government have belatedly persuaded to put some confidence into savings. No doubt Post Office expenses in connection with National Savings will go up, but we are entitled to know the cost of running National Savings business. That the Amendment would seek to discover and make publicly known.
There is the further general business of the Post Office in family allowances, pensions and benefits and sale of National insurance stamps. We must know what these things cost, have it in the open


clear, so that we can examine the efficiency or otherwise with which these important and proliferating services are conducted. It may be that, as we are often told, we have the most efficient Civil Service in the world. Far be it from me to criticise the quality of the Civil Service—it is the quantity I do not like—but we cannot judge the efficiency of the service unless we know precisely what it costs. We cannot do that unless we know what the administration of family allowances, pensions and benefits, and so on, is costing so that we can debate the way in which it conducts this business.
The purpose of this Amendment is to help the Postmaster-General and I hope that he will look at it in that way. Over the last three or four years this kind of Amendment has taken on rather greater and more special urgency. This arises because the functions of government have been massively extended by hon. Members opposite. It was truly said the other day that far too many people are minding other people's business. The Amendment is to find what it costs to mind other people's business. Clause 7 (d) says that the Bill would permit the Post Office
to perform services for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom".
That is an all-embracing and prodigious statement when one thinks of the sheer size and complexity of all that the Government are nowadays doing.
About 60,000 more civil servants have been taken on by the present Government. I do not doubt that with all the additional legislation with which the Government have burdened us those 60,000 additional civil servants in all their vast new offices are producing vastly more letters, most of them with "O.H.M.S." stamped on them, which the Post Office has to deliver. They are also making many more telephone calls than ever before. The House should have a way of knowing how the additional civil servants and their additional duties are increasing the costs to the Post Office and therefore eventually to the taxpayer. It is because I am so anxious to find out what the increasing cost of Government is that. I support the Amendment.
There is another point of important principle. Unamended, the Clause would permit the Post Office to make charges in respect of what it does for the National

Health Service authorities, both local and national. It is proper that the Post Office should give assistance to the Health Service, and we should know what it costs, particularly because the Service is in competition with some of the private health schemes that are becoming increasingly popular as our people are prepared more and more to become self-reliant in medical matters.
This is not a political issue. If the Health Service is to have its services from the Post Office either free or at least at a cost that is not made known to the House, does not that give it a competitive advantage over private health schemes, which must pay the full going rate for the services they receive from the Post Office? The Postmaster-General may say that the Health Service is charged the full rate by the Post Office. If so, let us know it. It is wrong that hidden costs by the Post Office should be charged to the Health Service, both local and national, whereas private health schemes are charged the full amount by the Post Office.
For those reasons I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Amendment would cover two ranges of activities by the Post Office on behalf of authorities in the United Kingdom. The first is such that the Post Office would undertake to do by agreement with the authorities concerned. It follows that it would not undertake these activities unless it were satisfied with the rate of remuneration it received. It is the intention that the Post Office should recover from these authorities not only the actual cost of performing these functions, which are extremely important and helpful to the authorities concerned, but also a contribution to the financial objective that it is expected to achieve—2 per cent. on expenditure.
In addition, the Post Office may be directed by the Minister to do agency work which it may not, in its discretion, have been willing to undertake. In order to safeguard the very important activities of certain authorities and Ministries, power is given in Clause 12, to which some Amendments have already been put down, to allow the Minister to direct


the Post Office to undertake these activities.
In that case, the point I have made about the first range of activities may not apply. It would be impossible for the Post Office to negotiate an agreed rate of remuneration with the authorities concerned if the Post Office had been directed to do that work against its better judgment and that is why Clause 12 allows, in subsection (7), for the Minister to determine the amount of remuneration the Post Office shall receive in the event of a dispute arising between the Post Office authorities concerned when the Post Office has been subject to a direction from the Minister to undertake that range of activities.
I suggest that this Amendment is not required because the Post Office will be remunerated in a way satisfactory to it or to the Minister, whatever activities it undertakes under Clause 7(1)(d) either by agreement or by determination of the Minister in the event of a direction being given by the Minister on the second range of the activities I have described.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Ridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the telegram service would come into these two categories? It is a big lossmaker. I know that he has not finally announced his plans, but I do not see how it is covered.

Mr. Stonehouse: There are a number of uneconomic activities which the Post Office engages in as part of its broader social obligations. The Post Office has been given a monopoly and it is part of that monopoly responsibility that the Post Office operates services which may, strictly speaking, be considered uneconomic. For example, the delivery of posts to the remoter areas of Wales and Scotland are uneconomic activities as is the provision of kiosks, raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths). The Post Office should continue to provide these kiosks even though it does not get fully remunerated for them.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I frequently write on behalf of rural districts about these problems. If there are to be additional charges arising from uneconomic

activities, they should be clearly identified and discussable.

Mr. Stonehouse: In the last Post Office White Paper, I saw to it that fuller details were provided on these uneconomic activities so that the House would be fully aware of them.
For instance, in columns 929 and 930 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Standing Committee on the Bill, I referred to examples of uneconomic social activities like the delivery of items for the blind, mainly Braille material which the Post Office has been willing to accept and will continue to accept. We also provide a free 999 emergency service, which costs a considerable sum, but I believe that in the light of the monopoly the Post Office has been given it is right it should accept this social obligation. If there are other uneconomic social obligations put on the Post Office, it may be appropriate at some future time for the Post Office to be remunerated in some way through adjustment of its economic objective or by direct cash subsidy to make up for it.
The House would accept that many of the activities of the Post Office which appear to be uneconomic are within the context of the monopoly obligations of this great institution.

Mr. Michael English: I thought I heard my right hon. Friend say that the 999 service was, and ought to be, a charge on the Post Office. Would it not be reasonable to suggest that it should be a charge upon the police or fire service or ambulance?

Mr. Stonehouse: It has been a service that the Post Office has willingly accepted and is willing to continue to accept. It is a charge which rightfully falls upon the Post Office.

Captain Orr: Has the cost of the 999 service been identified?

Mr. Stonehouse: Approximately £500,000.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked how these costs are met. They are met on a realistic basis and the parties concerned pay the actual charge for the running of the service. The hon. Gentleman said that in the past the Post Office came out badly in the provision of these services, and I


agree. In the past the Post Office received the actual cost of providing the services, without an addition for the financial objective. More recently it has been provided that the Post Office shall receive an extra 2 per cent., equivalent to the financial objective of this side of the business.
Costs will be shown in the appropriate accounts of the main employing departments. The cost of the savings agency work will be shown in the National Savings Department accounts, the costs of the broadcasting agency work in the Ministry of Posts. There will be ample identification of the costs of providing the services. The Amendment is not needed to secure the objectives that the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) wishes. There will be ample provision for the Post Office to be remunerated for the job that it will do on behalf of these authorities.
I would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stratton-Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) is to be congratulated on initiating a most useful debate on the whole question of the examination of agency costs by the Post Office, and has enabled us to judge whether the system is likely to be more effective in future than it has been in the past. Although the right hon. Gentleman went some way towards convincing me, he has not fully satisfied me. He reminded us that there was, in Clause 12, power for the Minister to levy costs where a direction was involved, but that in other cases, it has to be reached by agreement between the parties. In Committee, the Minister spoke very revealingly about the past history of these matters. He said:
In the past the Post Office has been subsidising these payments from all the other work it has been doing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th January, 1969; c. 503.]
The right hon. Gentleman reiterated this evening in slightly different words that that had been the position. I would like to see what McKinseys have written on this work of the Post Office. When they

delved into the Post Office finances they must have found many skeletons in this cupboard and have given the Post Office a lot to think about on whether or not the costs were truly economic. I wonder even today whether there is an operating system by which the costs are properly identified under each specific heading, and I am not convinced by the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has yet been completely and adequately tackled. The Postmaster-General told us that the 999 service cost £½ million a year. It would be interesting to know whether that figure was available before McKinseys had a look at the Post Office.

The right hon. Gentleman has reiterated what he said in Committee, that on the agency business the social Ministries will be paying 2 per cent. of the expenditure, and in Committee he went on to say:
There will be a payment, centrally negotiated, which will correspond to the cost of providing the service and will add an amount equivalent to the financial objective that the Post Office is expected to achieve in that particular year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 28th January, 1969; c. 503.]

No formula of what is an adequate payment is written into the Bill. We have only the words of the right hon. Gentleman in Committee and in the House, and an effort should have been made to be more specific. Are we likely, in a couple of years, to be faced with the situation which the Postmaster-General has had to admit arose in the past that proper remuneration has not been obtained for agency services? Is the new system any more effective than the old? I am not satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The system is not adequate to reflect the identifiable costs, nor is it adequate in the event of dispute between the parties.

For all those reasons, in broad principle I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 141. Noes 185.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[1.28 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)




Berry, Hn. Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hornby, Richard
Pardoe, John


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hunt, John
Peyton, John


Braine, Bernard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pounder, Rafton


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bullus, Sir Eric
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, J. M. L.


Burden, F. A.
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carlisle, Mark
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Lambton, Viscount
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronaid


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Silvester, Frederick


Eden, Sir John
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Weatherill, Bernard


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Grant, Anthony
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Grant-Ferris, R.
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, A. W.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. R. W. Elliot and


Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Jasper More.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Howie, W.


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Ray
Hoy, James


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Huckfield, Leslie


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Hynd, John


Barnett, Joel
Ellis, John
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
English, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ennals, David
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Binns, John
Ensor, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bishop, E. S.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Booth, Albert
Fernyhough, E.
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Boston, Terence
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George


Boyden, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Brooks, Edwin
Ford, Ben
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Loughlin, Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gregory, Arnold
Luard, Evan


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacDermot, Niall


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Macdonald, A. H.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hamling, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Haseldine, Norman
Mackie, John


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hazell, Bert
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Heffer, Eric S.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Dell, Edmund
Horner, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)







Mallaliue, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Slater, Joseph


Manuel, Archie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Marks, Kenneth
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Marquand, David
Palmer, Arthur
Taverne, Dick


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Park, Trevor
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pavitt, Laurence
Tinn, James


Mayhew, Christopher
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Varley, Eric G.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mendelson, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mikardo, Ian
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


Millan, Bruce
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rees, Merlyn
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Richard, Ivor
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton Test)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitaker, Ben


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roebuck, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Rose, Paul
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Murray, Albert
Rowlands, E.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Newens, Stan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Norwood, Christopher
Sheldon, Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Oakes, Gordon
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Ren½E (W'hampton, N. E.)



O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Oswald, Thomas
Skeffington, Arthur
Mr. Walter Harrison.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Mr. Robert Maxwell and Mr. John Silkin discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services): Mr. David Ensor and Mr. Robert Mellish added.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — CARAVAN SITE, INGLEBY ARNCLIFFE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fith.]

1.39 a.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I welcome this opportunity to raise the problem of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Berry, at the "Waggon and Horses", Ingleby Arncliffe. I find it very difficult to raise an Adjournment debate without the Minister present. I very much hope that he will be coming here to deal with this problem. Mr. and Mrs. Berry have a public house, garage and caravan site on the A.19, which has recently been improved and where a fast section of dual carriageway has been constructed.
Mr. Berry opened a filling station in 1954, and in 1955 applied for a caravan site on the southern portion of a field

with access through the filling station. Consent was refused. He applied again in 1960 for six caravans for a period of five years. This was allowed. The consent was renewed in 1965 for a period of 18 months, and the permitted number of caravans was increased to 10, together with places for two touring caravans. The increase in number was at the suggestion of the Stokesley Rural District Council. Consent has now been refused, and there is no caravan site on the A.19.
It appears that permission has been refused because caravans entering and going out of the car park would create a traffic hazard on the A.19. Only one caravan left the site in 1968 and only one went on tour in 1967. Only five caravans visited the site in 1968, including three owned by foreigners.
At present, some 300 to 400 vehicles visit the filling station and inn each day during the summer, including a number of trailer caravans, calling for petrol. Recently, when the caravan rally was on, because of the excellent access on the A.19, 20 caravans called to fill up on their way to and from the rally in one weekend.
Each week, large brewery lorries and trailers visit the inn. Each week, three large articulated tankers visit the filling station, together with other large vehicles, bringing oil and other requirements for the filling station and public house.
It is difficult to understand why the Minister has refused permission to continue the caravan site when so few caravans come in or go out of the park,


and they normally remain for the whole of the summer season. To base his argument on the traffic hazard which these caravans create is difficult to understand.
The other reason for refusal was the effect of the caravan park on the appearance of the area. Mr. Berry has stated that he is happy to do the necessary landscaping to improve the appearance of the site. The site has been in existence since 1960, and no objection on the ground of appearance had been raised until the Minister's inspector put this forward following the inquiry on 9th January, 1969. I know the site well. It is not unattractive. It is kept in excellent condition, and Mr. and Mrs. Berry have conformed to all the requirements asked for by the local planning authority.
I recognise that the volume of traffic on the A.19 has risen considerably during the last few years. I understand that a count was taken in 1965 which gave a flow of 4,620 vehicles in a 16-hour day. About 25 of these were heavy vehicles. I believe that the flow of traffic is estimated to have risen by about 5 per cent. each year since.
I must point out that there is an excellent acceleration lane running into the frontage of the petrol filling station and the inn, and this gives a very good pull-in for caravans off the A.19. The caravans are visible at a distance of about 2 miles from the footpath on the escarpment of the Cleveland Hills, as is the inn and the filling station, and these would undoubtedly be improved by the landscaping suggested by Mr. and Mrs. Berry.
Mr. and Mrs. Berry have met all the requirements of the Ministry, and a further application will be put forward giving the site an access on to a by-road on the south side of the petrol filling station. It is difficult to see why the Ministry of Transport has dug its toes in so much over this application, as Mr. and Mrs. Berry have done everything that the local planning authority has asked for.
I hope that the Minister will take a more reasonable attitude towards this site. They were asked to set the entrance back on the road by about 15 yards, and this they did. They were asked to install a children's playground, and this

they also did. In fact they have met every requirement put forward by the local planning authority.
This is not of great commercial interest to Mr. and Mrs. Berry. It is very much a matter of principle, and I think that the Minister should recognise this. Each week these large articulated vehicles come down the A.19 from Teesside. It is impossible for the petrol vehicles and the brewery lorries to go past with their loads. They all call in, and there they create a much greater traffic hazard. There are at least three brewery wagons a week, and more than three articulated petrol lorries.
We are talking in terms of one caravan, or possibly two or three, coming into a site on the A.19 once a year. It is almost impossible to understand why the Ministry has taken such a stand on such a small matter as a traffic hazard. Every suggestion put forward by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government with regard to planning has been met by the occupants of this caravan site, and I very much hope that the Minister will push aside the red tape in this case. I hope that he will give the matter further consideration and see that these people get a fair deal on what is for them a very minor matter financially, but very much a matter of principle about which they feel they are being treated very badly by the Ministry.

1.48 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Before I come to some of the points of substance mentioned by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) I want to make a brief reference to two quasilegal points, because I think it right that these should be put on the record as soon as possible.
First, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I gather that Mrs. Berry is considering a further application for permission. I therefore want to be very careful about anything I say so that it cannot be used in subsequent proceedings in a way which might appear to be to the advantage of one party or another. This is not to say that the proceedings in Parliament can be inhibited by a process that may be taking place elsewhere, but, as anything that we say here can be quoted, I am naturally anxious,


that nothing I say should have any consequences which might not seem to be quite proper if there are further proceedings in this matter. To some extent that inhibits me in my reply.
There is a good deal that I should like to say about this case in view of the reasonable way in which the hon. Gentleman has referred to the matter, but there is a second fact which I should get on the record quite early, and it is this: When the Minister has given his decision in a planning appeal his function is finished. He has no power to reopen the matter for the obvious reason that there must come a time when a decision becomes a reality. One cannot keep on going back on a decision and having another decision; otherwise, one would never move.
So, even if I thought it were right to do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested in asking that my right hon. Friend the Minister should look at the matter again, he has no power to do so. If matters should come before him again as a result of a second appeal, he is entirely free to make his decision on the merits of that case. I say that in case the hon. Member thinks I am churlish in saying that I cannot recommend the Minister to look at the matter again.
I begin the main burden of what I have to say by pointing out that what the Minister did in this case was to investigate a decision, which was the subject of appeal, by the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council. It was not a decision that the Minister took. It is a decision that the appropriate local authority, the county council, took.
The county council refused permission for the development on three grounds. Two of them were traffic grounds and the third one was that the establishment of a caravan site in that prominent place alongside the principal trunk road was considered detrimental and likely to prejudice the amenities of the open area.
The Ministry of Transport was brought into the matter because under Article 9 of the Town and Country Pluming (General Development) Order. 1963 if the site is within 220 feet of a trunk road the local planning authority is obliged—it does not have any discretion—to consult the divisional road engineer for his comments. This was

done, with the result that the engineer, who gave his evidence at the inquiry in very precise terms, did so in regard to the trunk road aspects of the matter.
It is true that Mrs. Berry was granted permission for the stationing of six caravans on the site from 1st April to 30th September each year, and that was given in December, 1960, for a five-year period, and two spaces were to be reserved for touring caravans. She was granted a further permission in March. 1966 to extend the period to 30th September, 1967, when 10 caravans were permitted, but when she applied to extend the permission she received notice of refusal.
I would point out that in 1955 permission was refused by the direction of the Minister of Transport for a caravan site at the south end of the field because it was felt that the combined access to the caravan site and the filling station would not be in the interests of safety and the convenience of traffic entering or leaving the trunk road.
The local planning authority said at the inquiry—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows this better than I do, although I know the road to some extent—that the A.19 was becoming an important and very busy principal trunk route with the expansion of Teesside and that the county council wanted travellers on it to have a safe and visually satisfying journey. The site was fairly conspicuous for about 800 yards to the north and 525 yards to the south, and the council held that it detracted from the very pleasing panoramic view of the Cleveland Hills about 1½ miles away inside the North York Moors National Park.
I should point out that the site can be seen from the long distance footpath and from other points on the eastern escarpment of the Cleveland Hills. I shall have a chance of looking at this site when I go to open the path formally in a few weeks' time. The council's point, in addition to the reasons that I have given, was that it did not want to consolidate the commercial development at this point, by allowing the caravan site to become permanent or possibly to grow larger. I pointed out that the provisions in the past were temporary and not permanent.
The divisional road engineer's evidence to the inquiry is very material on this point. He stressed the importance of the A.19. He said that the scheme for making a first-class dual carriageway connection with the Midlands and the South was progressing. The Ministry of Transport aims to make this improved road as free from unnecessary access as possible. Work on all sections of the road is due to be started by 1970 and some improved sections are already in use. The section passing the appeal site was nearly completed at the date of the inquiry in January of this year. The road engineer further argued at the inquiry that the road conditions had changed materially since the earlier temporary applications were granted. The existing caravan site and the petrol filling station were close to the road junction and this would constitute one of the few major traffic hazards left on this route.
That is the view of the road engineer. Consequently, his evidence was, and the Ministry of Transport's position is, that they are very much opposed to the continuation of this use as it will be detrimental to the improved trunk road. They further hold that the presence of a gap in the central reservation opposite the junction of the Ingleby Arncliffe Road and the bridle road running along the southern boundary of the site would enable southbound vehicles on the trunk road to make a right turn into the bridle road.
Towed vehicles would have to make a right turn from the southbound carriageway through the break in the central reservation, and those vehicles would also have to make another right turn to rejoin the southbound traffic stream. If the access proposed in the application were used, southbound traffic would have to make a U-turn to enter it. This could be overcome by providing an access to the site from the bridle road, but that point was not raised at the inquiry, and the inspector does not comment on it for that reason. The present speed restriction is 50 m.p.h., but this will be increased when the road is improved.
That was very strong and definite evidence from the traffic engineer which was put before the inspector and upon which he commented in his report which came before the Minister.

Mr. Kitson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but surely he must recognise that in 1967 only one caravan left the site and in 1968 only one caravan left the site. During the weekend, when I went to see Mr. and Mrs. Berry, a caravan rally was being held at Crathorne Hall, 5 miles up the road; 20 caravans called at the filling station and came into the same access as the Ministry of Transport is objecting to.
As to the amenity aspect of the area, this caravan site has been there for seven years and the planning authority has not objected to the site from the amenity point of view. The authority has not said that it is an eyesore. This is just an added runner at this stage in the proceedings. Quite rightly, Mr. and Mrs. Berry feel that as the authority has allowed it since 1960, suddenly to say that it is now an eyesore is grossly unfair. I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with the point that only one or possibly two caravans have been coming to the site each year.

Mr. Skeffington: I accept that what the hon. Gentleman says as to the facts. But the point is that in 1955 permission was refused at the direction of the Ministry of Transport for a caravan site at the south end of the field because it was felt that, at this point, access even then would not be in the interest of safety and convenience and the divisional engineer's evidence is that the importance of the road is changing and greater traffic will be using it.
I have seen the photographs of the road now, both at this stage and as it was a few years ago. Whatever may have been the position in the past, the divisional engineer's evidence was on the possibilities in the future if this were to be the permanent position.
I turn now to the amenity point of view. I do not think that the local planning authority was called upon to say much about amenity when it was merely giving temporary permissions on a year-to-year basis. Now, in view of the situation which has developed and the opening of the long distance footway, the case for amenity was strongly argued by the authority at the inquiry.
At the inquiry, the applicant, who was represented by counsel, said that the


access was safe before the road improvements started. It looks to me as if her case was that if there was any difficulty it was caused by the design of the road improvements rather than to any hazard which might arise from the access.
The inspector heard the evidence and visited the site and I emphasise that this was not a case of a Minister in Whitehall coming to a decision unaided. It was a decision of the local planning authority upon which there was an investigation. In paragraph 26 of his report, the inspector said:
I should not expect the caravans and any cars which might adjoin them could be clearly visible at a distance of 2 miles, but they would increase the mass of the inn and the petrol filling station, and they would make the existing intrusion in the landscape more obvious. I have noted that the immediate surroundings of the site are not in the area of great landscape value, but it seems essential to me that the view from the long-distance footpath should be spoilt as little as possible. The same considerations apply to the appearance of the land to the west side from the trunk road where extension of the mass of existing commercial enterprises should be avoided. The application is therefoer unacceptable both for reasons of danger to traffic and because of the damage to the appearance of the area.
In other words, the inspector, in addition to the traffic objection, upheld the case for amenity and consequently recommended that the appeal should be dismissed. When the matter came to my right hon. Friend, it was gone through carefully again, as is usual with planning appeals. The drawings, photographs and evidence were examined again. In view of the very strong evidence given by the road engineer, my right hon. Friend felt that he had no alternative but to agree with the recommendation of the inspector.

Mr. Kitson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is going up there in a few weeks' time to open the walk. I hope that we can then look at this matter together, because we can see it very well from there. We can consider the landscape problem, and go to see what is the problem at the filling station. I hope that he can agree to this.

Mr. Skeffington: So far as my programme allows, I shall be delighted. I

do go to see sites from time to time. When I started doing so, some eyebrows were raised, but I do not think that I recommend my right hon. Friend to make a worse decision because I have seen for myself.
This point was taken up the other day in regard to a High Court judge who visited the scene of an accident. One of the points on appeal was whether or not he had acted properly. The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing improper, but that he should be careful to ensure that it was not thought that his action gave an advantage to one party at the expense of the other. So I should be glad to see the site, subject to the exigencies of time. There is another application, so it would be helpful if the matter should come before the Minister again.
But the practical objection is very strong. There is a desire, when roads are improved, to keep as much traffic as possible from entering them at other than specified points, which have been deliberately designed. If one adds to a busy road, with fast traffic and increasing numbers of vehicles, the hazard of traffic and caravans having to cross the road and—in one case, from the south—to make a U-turn, this is a serious traffic hazard which the road engineers are bound to consider. On that ground alone, my right hon. Friend had very little alternative.
I shall be able to go into the amenity matter further in due course, but the area of outstanding natural beauty comes quite close. There are these elevated trees and hills, from which I understand this little complex of buildings can be seen is another factor which my right hon. Friend has to take into account. Whatever decision we make in these cases, after careful consideration, is bound to displease someone, but we try to do the job as conscientiously as possible. I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member that every factor was considered by the inspector and the Ministry.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock, a.m.